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

Re: Packaging Amfora and dependencies

Hi Micheal,

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 21:23, Micheal Waltz <micheal@ecliptik.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:17:25PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Hi, in the rr/README, it states: "If you prefer, you can consider the code in this package, and this package only, to be licensed under the MIT license instead."
> This is not clear as to what the license is and I have a feeling that FTP masters will not like it.
> Can you open up an issue on amfora GitHub repository and ask makeworld there as to what should be the license?
> Since the record of such a conversation would be public, we can justify in d/copyright proper licensed for everything.

I opened a github issues yesterday for clarification[1], and upstream
responded that it can be considered dual licensed, but for Debian,
GPL-3.0 works.

Is that enough justification to leave it GPL-3.0? Or should it go in as
dual licensed?

It needs to go-in dual licensed.
Looking through the packaging docs[2], I found the syntax for dual license

Files: rr/*
Copyright: 2020 makeworld <colecmac@protonmail.com>
License: GPL-3+ or Expat

It should be "GPL-3 or MIT" there should not be a "+", since the license is GPL-3 and not GPL-3 and beyond
And include the Expat license text in debian/copyright.

Let me know which is the best way to proceed, thank you.

Admittedly, I saw this mail after I made the change myself and pushed, please have a look at my commits.

I did changes that I considered sensible and uploaded to NEW. Thanks a lot for your work on this :-)


Reply to: