Re: wxWindows licence
> If you are refering to the comment in incoming.debian.org/REJECT, the
> issue seems to be that you only included the summary in .../doc/wx*/copyright
> and put the license in .../doc/wx*/license.txt. less /usr/share/doc/*/copyright
> has the actual license in the copyright file whenever it's not LGPL or GPL.
Yes. It was just my waffling summary that confused the issue and led to
the question about the actual licence's freeness in private mail.
It wasn't initially rejected because of the actual licence, just my mistake
in packaging it. :-)
thanks for removing any trace of doubt about the licence itself.