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

Re: Bug#210779: libtunepimp1: give me the license

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

Michał Politowski -- mpol@charybda.icm.edu.pl
Talking has been known to lead to communication if practised carelessly.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: