[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: scim-python: python bindings and input methods for scim



Hi,

I have changed svn content.  Explanation below.  Please ack these
changes are OK then we can do upload.

> >> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> >> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scim-python
> >> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> >> main contrib non-free
> >> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scim-python/scim-python_0.1.12-1.dsc
> >
> > Add this to SVN too, please.
> >
> Done, and new version have uploaded to debian-mentors.


In License, you have:
LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 2.1 of GNU Lesser General Public
License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in
/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1.

LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 3 of GNU Lesser General Public
License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in
/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3.
---

These are missleading.  LGPL2 states:

  3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.  To do
this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
instead of to this License.  (If a newer version than version 2 of the
ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify
that version instead if you wish.)  Do not make any other change in
these notices.

LGPL2.1 states:
[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL.  It also counts
 as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence
 the version number 2.1.]

I do not think you need these additional (and very misleading when mentioning
GPL3) text here.  They are properly addressed in respective license or in
source code as "or (at your option) any later version."

If you had reason to change from LGPL to GPL, you need to make changes as
specified but I see no reason to do so.


Reply to: