License change for ghostscript

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On 08/04/2009 05:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
>
>> No, please look more closely.  The above is a list of packages that
>> *use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.
>
>> See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
>> based on requirements for libgs.so.8 and libijs-0.35.so.
>
> Yes, I saw that after I'd sent my reply. I had assumed the original list
> was correct, and worked on that basis.
>
>>> An interesting side-question here is what license tag we should use for
>>> an app whose license text states GPLv2+, but which we are linking
>>> against a GPLv3+ library, effectively meaning that its license for our
>>> purposes is GPLv3+...
>> Yes, indeed.
>
> I should probably talk to Spot about that.

So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when 
marking the package's licensing. We go by what the source in the tarball 
tells us. Otherwise, it would become massively too complicated to figure 
it out for a lot of packages.

~spot