FIRST: GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID CC'S. I OBVIOUSLY READ THE LIST. Noah Slater <firstname.lastname@example.org> (26/04/2009): > > JFWIW, I guess you want license-related stuff to go into > > debian/copyright, rather than README.source. > > Actually, I would use debian/copyright for simply specifying licences, > and debian/README.source to explain how the source files have been > prepared, exactly like Charles is doing. What if you actually check the contents of README.source? Quoting it[1,2]: | The manual contains a non-free statement but was relicenced by Upstream, see | http://phyml.googlecode.com/files/phyml_manual_11March2009.pdf That pretty much sounds like clarifying a license issue. Exactly why I said it should have gone to debian/copyright instead, so that people checking licenses might have a clue. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2009/03/msg00041.html 2. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/phyml/ Now, you say Charles explain how the source files were prepared, that's not even correct. The other part is: | The sources of the PDF manual are uuencoded in debian/phyml_manual.tar.gz.uu. I | asked one the upstream maintainer to include them in the same tar archive as | PhyML itself. That doesn't say what license applies, where it was downloaded from, etc. Charles, please note I'm not challenging what you did, only Noah's wild claims. Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature