In general, this license clash doesn't seem to be a strictly downstream issue. Perhaps you should file bugs with the upstream projects to either revise their licensing if they can or explicitly depend on libeditreadline-dev, especially for the projects that fail to build with it. I think you would offer more to say on the dilemma than individual package maintainers, unless your findings were machine-driven going off, say, debian/ copyright (then validating the entries could be left up to them). In any case I appreciate the digging you've done. > maxima Check the maxima-sage package too; they have their own source package because they need a build with a different Lisp implementation, and splitting into two source packages had proved easier than not.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.