Comments regarding apertium-pol_0.1.1-1_amd64.changes

[Tino Didriksen]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 22:28, Thorsten Alteholz <
ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:

> Hi Kartik,
>
> I always fail to find a place where GPL-3+ is mentioned as license of
> apertium.  All I find on github is GPL-3. So do you have a link at hand?
>
> Thanks!
>  Thorsten



The position of the Apertium project is that the COPYING file's recommended
application counts for all files in the repo that don't have more precise
licensing attached. So if COPYING is the GPLv3 license, that license
recommends applying itself as "either version 3 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version", so that's what we consider all files in that
repo licensed as. This is also how I make the packages.

Apertium's mailing list for informal reference:
https://www.mail-archive.com/apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06931.html

I'm part of the Apertium Project Management Committee (
http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/PMC ). But we don't have any official ruling
or guideline about this. As the one who prepares the Debian packages, I've
tried many times to get the situation formally clarified across the board,
but the best we have is a bunch of declarations of intent and even more
open dual-licensing in the mailing list. Nobody has time to go through
everything, but everyone is in agreement about what should be done.

-- Tino Didriksen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20181205/8a875cc9/attachment.html>