Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package
Nicholas D Steeves writes ("unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package"):
> I'm adopting src:muse-el, and the old d/copyright file does not state
> which license the old debian/* uses.
This kind of thing is quite annoying. I would encourage everyone who
does packaging to explictly licence your debian/* with some very
permissive licence (eg, MIT).
> I was recently able to contact Michael Olson. Would a signed email
> from Michael Olson certifying that his contributions to debian/* were
> of either GPL-2, GPL-2+, or MIT be sufficient to allow an update to
> src:muse-el/debian/copyright? If so, to whom should I ask him to send
> that email?
The mail does not have to be signed. (It seems you're confident you
have the right email correspondent.) Although there is no harm in it
being signed, asking for a signature might make it more inconvenient
for Michael, or cause delay.
You can ask Michael to send the mail to you. He could also post it
here, if he feels like it. If he sends the mail to you privately, do
not publish his new email address without his permission. Put a copy
of the email, with the headers heavily redacted, in the package.
As an example of how to do this for some upstream contributions, I
> The bug associated with this ITA is #844184. By now it's kind of a
> long read ;-)
I haven't read it :-).
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.