Re: RFS: sisc
I uploaded a new version of the package.
On 12 September 2010 18:28, Torsten Werner <email@example.com> wrote:
> At least the copyright holders and/or licenses of the
> following files are not documented:
Now mentioned in debian/copyright. The license was not in the files
themselves so I found the correct license from the docbook-dsssl
project's release tarball.
I now remove this file, and esub2acm.layout, when repacking. it was
only used to build a PDF version of a related paper which is bundled
with the source, but not built by any targets in 'build.xml'. It
lacks copyright and a license. (I've left the paper that uses the
files, in the interests of keeping the diff between the repacked and
upstream tarball minimal.)
I have been looking at the way other Schemes handle this. Many just
give a blanket license for the entire set of SRFIs, which is indeed in
the SRFI spirit. However, to be sure, I have added individual
copyrights and licenses for the files where SISC uses a reference
implementation of a SRFI. Let me know if you have any questions as
this process does seem to have some grey areas.
David Banks <firstname.lastname@example.org>