--Apple-Mail-7538FA23-925C-4FEE-918F-D0F4F70730E2
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are a few lawyers here, myself included, though I’m not sure anyone on list actually has an attorney-client relationship with the distro or its makers (and to be clear, I have no such relationship and nothing I say here should be construed as
legal advice).
All of that said, the suggestion to use an older readline version with GPLv2 or GPLv2+ licensing when building with GPLv2-only packages seems appropriate to me.
Happy New Year everyone!
Best,
Jim
Sent from my iPhone, apologies for misspellings, odd autocorrects, misplaced edits and other randomness.
On Jan 2, 2021, at 2:48 AM, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> 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 <ftpmaster@debian.org> are the group that controls what is and isn't
accepted into Debian.
smcv
(not a lawyer either)
--Apple-Mail-7538FA23-925C-4FEE-918F-D0F4F70730E2
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There are a few lawyers here, myself included, though I’m not sure anyone on list
actually has an attorney-client relationship with the distro or its makers (and to be clear, I have no such relationship and nothing I say here should be construed as legal advice). </span><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">All of that said, the suggestion to use an older readline version with GPLv2 or GPLv2+ licensing when building with GPLv2-only packages seems appropriate to me.</div><div style="caret-
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Happy New Year everyone!</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Best,</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Jim</div><br><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Sent from my iPhone, apologies for misspellings, odd autocorrects, misplaced edits
and other randomness.</span></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Jan 2, 2021, at 2:48 AM, Simon McVittie <
smcv@debian.org> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 at
00:48:43 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>There are some packages with GPL-2-only licensed binaries that link with</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>GPL-3+ licensed libreadline.so.8. I do not know
Debian-legal's current</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>interpretation on that matter.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>debian-legal is purely advisory, does not control what is in Debian, and</span><br><span>does not
necessarily contain any actual lawyers. The archive administrators</span><br><span><
ftpmaster@debian.org> are the group that controls what is and isn't</span><br><span>accepted into Debian.</span><br><span></span><br><span> smcv</
span><br><span> (not a lawyer either)</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>
--Apple-Mail-7538FA23-925C-4FEE-918F-D0F4F70730E2--
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)