Re: How to properly handle contradicting licenses in a single file (aclocal.m4)

On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 02:20:45PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>I merged several licenses into one (LGPLv2+, GPLv2+, GPLv3+) into GPLv3+
>because upstream licensing for 'globalplatform' was inconsistent, and
>was told by DFSG team to not merge things but to provide all upstream
>copyright notices and license headers.  Working out the mess (further
>complicated by OpenSSL exceptions) is still in progress together with
>upstream.  I'm not sure this preference in Debian is documented fully,
>and it would be useful to clarify.  For simplicity I have had a desire
>to merge a bunch of (L)GPL licensed code simply as GPLv3+ to save time
>and reduce complexity, but this doesn't seem permitted.  It is legally
>fine, (L)GPL+ code normally allows consumers to upgrade to latest
>version and Debian is permitted to use code under a upgraded license.

Who is the upstream of aclocal.m4? Do I REALLY have to talk to people 
who contributed two lines of code to GNU autotools three decades ago to 
maintain a simple package in Debianß

This all doesn't help. We need definitive guidelines that package 
maintainers can adhere to. Maintaining debian/copyright already takes 
more time than maintaining the actual package, it is impossible to do 
right, and frankly, I ask myself why I am still maintaining packages for 
Debian EVERY time I open up an editor in debian/copyright.

At one time, this will be the straw that wil make me me stop doing 
Debian stuff. Sooner or later. If we don't improve.

Greetings
Marc