Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package
Kel Modderman writes:
> Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an
> interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible
> for the actual license change, and not "Smart Link Ltd."? What do they
> think about it? Is it your lawful right to change it? Please write a
> brief reason for the change, but a bit more informative than the
> reason stated in debian/changelog (#327545 revealed nothing).
"Smart Link Ltd." describes a copyright owner, not a license. As a
MODULE_LICENSE string, it is meaningless, and should be replaced with
an appropriate string. Ideally the upstream author would do this, but
I see no harm in a Debian package doing it as long as the new string
remains accurate. Are you suggesting that the module's license is in
fact not "Dual BSD/GPL"?