El 11/8/24 a las 11:19, Vasyl Gello escribió:

Recently FTP Master Thorsten Alteholz pointed me to the fact that mixing code licensed under GPL-2 only with code under GPL-2+ / GPL-3+ is not allowed in same
repository [1].

I would say that's not a good characterization of the problem.

The problem is not about shipping GPL-2-only and GPL-3 files in the same repo. That should be allowed. The problem is combining those files into a single executable and shipping such executable inside the .deb. That's forbidden because licenses are incompatible, as the matrix you quoted shows.

Here, "incompatible license" means you can't create a derived work with
files under those incompatible licenses.

So, before thinking in terms of repositories, you should think in terms
of what you are allowed to distribute in the .deb and what files were
combined to create those executables.

Thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El 11/8/24 a las 14:36, Vasyl Gello escribió:

The directory in question is a Kodi "skin", or a set of media files and XML files
that gets interpreted by Kodi skinning engine (like a script).

I think it will depend on the way kodi interacts with those skins.

Unfortunately, I don't know kodi or its internals to tell, so I
hope somebody else can give a better answer, I just wanted to clarify
that the problem is not "shipping GPL-2 and GPL-3 in the same repo".

In some cases, the author makes a declaration about how these plugins
should be considered license-wise, and this usually helps.

For example, one of the packages I maintain (procmail) has this
paragraph by the author:

For those of you that choose to use the GNU General Public License,
my interpretation of the GNU General Public License is that no procmailrc
script falls under the terms of the GPL unless you explicitly put
said script under the terms of the GPL yourself.

So, for the kodi case, maybe upstream can help.

If you think it is OK to keep shipping skin like it is done now, I will point to this discussion
in a "Comment" subsection of mentioned d/copyright entry.

Adding a Comment section to clarify things would make sense,
but I personally would not like a reference to this discussion,
I am not a lawyer! :-)

Thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)