chrysn <chrysn@fsfe.org> writes: > even better: the OGL_helper that was the base of our OGL_helper is > relicensed without significant changes. Relicensed to what? > debian-legal, i've got two little questions remaining before i can get > openscad ready for upload: > > * what's your opinion on releasing a debian package from the > upstream tarball as it is (with the old qpl copyright header), stating > in the debian/copyright file that the file was relicensed and thus, > everything is ok? You specifically need the verbatim text from the copyright holders grating the license. Merely referencing it is not enough; the ‘debian/copyright’ file must contain the text. You might copy the grant of license from an email or the like. You should clearly show the provenance of the license grant text, so it can be independently verified in future. > * one file is LGPL licensed with the following addition: > > In addition, as a special exception, Nokia gives you certain additional > rights. These rights are described in the Nokia Qt LGPL Exception > version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. > > but LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt is not shipped. we don't require the exception > (LGPL2.1 is fine for linking it into a GPL program), but someone > (ftpmaster) could complain. should i act on it or is it sufficient to > note the facts and be done with it? I'm not sure about that. In the absence of that additional grant, the LGPL 2.1 is still sufficient for the work to enter Debian. The prudent thing to do, of course, is to get the referenced text into the package. I don't know whether you need to postpone releasing the package for that though. Thank you for your diligence in this important matter. -- \ “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any | `\ view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and | _o__) opposite view.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgprunwswWquB.pgp
Description: PGP signature