Re: Debian packaging and (possible) Eterm license violations
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
> package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
> what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
> maintainer to sort out license incompatibilities. Poorer solutions
> are to change just the Debian package by finding compatibly-licensed
> alternatives or ripping out the conflicting code.
Hi Michael,
Please pardon my Debian-ignorance, but where is the correct place to
"file this bug"?
I want to get the bug officially noticed in part because upstream has
said (and I'm paraphrasing here): "Debian has no problem with the
current Eterm license terms so you shouldn't, either."
> As a purely pedantic note, the enlightenment/eterm CVS browser at
> SourceForge makes it looks like grkelot.[ch] are under the same
> BSD-with-advertising license that Michael Jennings' "the rest" code
> uses. Not specifically mentioned in the bug report is the (L)GPL
> incompatibility with the classic advertising clause that is used for
> the BSD-licensed portions.
Yes, true.
> (If you follow debian-legal, I apologize for cc'ing you directly, but
> it seemed the more reliable way to get the response through.)
No worries! I appreciate your help!
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: eh3@mit.edu ed@eh3.com
URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/
phone: 617-253-0098
fax: 617-253-4464
Reply to: