Impact of GPL packaging on non-GPL packages...

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday 13 January 2009 00:07, Robert Collins wrote:
> I've noticed a lot of 'GPL licenced packaging' on REVU. Ignore the
> question of whether the packaging data is even large enough to
> copyright, what is the impact on the end user.
>
> (I suspect its a case of simple case of combining rather than derivation
> in the common case). But more important than my knowing, is for our
> users to know: e.g. if they see a packaged binary library that claims to
> be e.g. BSD, but the shipped copyright claims both BSD and GPL[for the
> packaging] what should the user assume - that they have received a BSD
> library, or that they will have to not use the packaged version if they
> are building BSD code on top of it.
>
> I can see further corollaries to this, but first-steps-first.

My general recommendation is that people license the packaging under the same 
terms as the upstream package.  It avoids confusion.  If people find the 
upstream licensing objectionable, then perhaps they should package something 
else.

Scott K