tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: gnu-agpl-v3 for print/ghostscript-gpl

Ryo ONODERA <> 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 <> 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

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index