Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost> writes: > Some patches in print/ghostscript-gpl are licensed in gnu-agpl-v3. > However print/ghostscript-gpl has LICENSE=gnu-gpl-v3. So therefore we shouldn't copy -agpl patches to -gpl, when those patches are subject to copyright law. > It is not relevant for print/ghostscript-gpl anymore. I do not understand this sentence. > And DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES does not include gnu-agpl-v3. I don't think what the default is matters to this dicsussion. > If our policy for DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES will not change to > include gnu-agpl-v3 inside, we should remove all gnu-agpl-v3 patches > from print/ghostscrip-gpl. Even if it does. No matter what, some people will change defaults and should not be suprrised. Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes: > I don't see any non-trivial patches except for Jasper. That one is not > under AGPL. There is this very fuzzy notion that small changes, less than 10 lines, are not creative expression and thus not copyrighted. I skimmed the patches. I don't see anything substantive in terms of security patches. Maybe the makefile adjusting is complicated enough, but surely that's our work. I think Joerg is right here. Ryo: If you want to clean up the patch files to be more clear about provenance and licensing, that seems reasonable. Overall, given that no one is maintaining a fork of ghostscript-gpl as a GPL program, I think it's getting less tenable to keep patching and using it. But don't let notion stop anyone who wants to.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature