There are some packages with GPL-2-only licensed binaries that link with GPL-3+ licensed libreadline.so.8. I do not know Debian-legal's current interpretation on that matter.
maximaCheck the maxima-sage package too; they have their own source package because they need a build with a different Lisp implementation, and splitting into two source packages had proved easier than not.
On Jan 2, 2021, at 2:48 AM, Simon McVittie <email@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 at 00:48:43 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
There are some packages with GPL-2-only licensed binaries that link with
GPL-3+ licensed libreadline.so.8. I do not know Debian-legal's current
interpretation on that matter.
debian-legal is purely advisory, does not control what is in Debian, and
does not necessarily contain any actual lawyers. The archive administrators <firstname.lastname@example.org> are the group that controls what is and isn't
accepted into Debian.
(not a lawyer either)
In general, this license clash doesn't seem to be a strictly downstream issue.
Perhaps you should file bugs with the upstream projects to either revise their
licensing if they can or explicitly depend on libeditreadline-dev, especially
for the projects that fail to build with it.
In any case I appreciate the digging you've done.
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||8 (1 / 7)|