On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:01:15 +0200, Robert Jordens wrote: > Hello! > > [Sat, 13 Sep 2003] Michał Politowski wrote: > > I may be wrong, so I think I'll refer to the debian-devel wisdom before > > a possible reopening. > > Ropening is not your job! Well, it is. Or at least I fail to see any meaningful reason why it should not be, while I can certainly open a new report with the same problem if I see the problem not solved. But I hate open/close wars, and I sense one here, so reopening is out of the question at the moment. > > How do you define _package_'s copyright and license when the _package_ > > contains parts distributed under different licenses? > > The package's copyright is the upstream copyright. Interesting definition. But policy uses the word package mostly to refer to the complete Debian packages. > If I add files with different licenses, I specify those licenses in > the repective files (if possible). Anyway the severity and policy reference _might_ be an overreaction but I definitely find using some license and making others search for it a bug, and more than a minor one. [...] > All the packages that contain a manpage based on the template from debhelper > include that snippet. Go ahead and file RC-bugs... Mass bug filing? Not without proper discussion. And I generally just try to report apparent problems in the packages I happen to look at. But if this thread results in a report against dh-make, I wouldn't be that surprised. -- Michał Politowski -- firstname.lastname@example.org Talking has been known to lead to communication if practised carelessly.
Description: Digital signature