On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:41:06PM +0100, James Westby wrote: > On (25/09/06 01:48), Francesco Namuri wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:15:22PM +0100, James Westby wrote: > > > If copyright has been asserted on the file then it must be mentioned in > > > debian/rules, along with its distribution license. If there isn't one > > > you should find out what it is and add it, or drop the file. > > > > It's not my solution, :) > > I have found it taking a look in the dpatch examples > > (/usr/share/doc/dpatch/examples/dpatch/01_config.dpatch.gz). > > considering that it is among the examples of dpatch, I have thought that > > it is released under GPL, your opinion? > > If dpatch is under GPL then yes probably, but confirmation should be > sought. You can also check the debian/copyright of dpatch, as it should > be documented in there. hi, yesterday I have written to the author of the patch, this morning I have received an answer... in short, the author (Ralf Treinen <treinen@debian.org>) says that: (quoting his words) "You may use, modify, redistribute with or without modifications in any way you wish." and that it's not necessary to put information about the copyright of the patch in debian/copyright... kind regards francesco -- Francesco Namuri <francesco@namuri.it> http://www.namuri.it/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature