Re: RFS: anymeal
Hi Thijs & d-mentors all,
Maybe you can address these things in your next version. Because of
these are small issues I've uploaded this version now.
(damn spam filters, I've noticed only now...) Upload of anymeal in
unstable has been rejected by FTP master due to this:
rejected, you miss to mention the different license of the documentation,
and as thats GFDL you need to check if its one thats allowed in main.
I've checked in the code by found reference of LGPL only in
acinclude.m4 and admin/acinclude.m4.in that have a copyright note in
their top as:
dnl This file is part of the KDE libraries/packages
dnl Copyright (C) 1997 Janos Farkas (chexum@shadow.banki.hu)
dnl (C) 1997,98,99 Stephan Kulow (coolo@kde.org)
dnl This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
dnl modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
dnl License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
dnl version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
dnl This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
dnl but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
dnl MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
dnl Library General Public License for more details.
dnl You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General
Public License
dnl along with this library; see the file COPYING.LIB. If not, write to
dnl the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Steet, Fifth Floor,
dnl Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
dnl IMPORTANT NOTE:
dnl Please do not modify this file unless you expect your modifications to be
dnl carried into every other module in the repository.
dnl
dnl Single-module modifications are best placed in configure.in for kdelibs
dnl and kdebase or configure.in.in if present.
an then below:
dnl This is a merge of some macros out of the gettext aclocal.m4
dnl since we don't need anything, I took the things we need
dnl the copyright for them is:
dnl >
dnl Copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
dnl This Makefile.in is free software; the Free Software Foundation
dnl gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
dnl with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
dnl This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
dnl but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law; without
dnl even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
dnl PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
dnl >
dnl for this file it is relicensed under LGPL
Then we find another reference of LGPL into admin/conf.change.pl with
# this script patches a config.status file, to use our own perl script
# in the main loop
# we do it this way to circumvent hacking (and thereby including)
# autoconf function (which are GPL) into our LGPL acinclude.m4.in
# written by Michael Matz <matz@kde.org>
# adapted by Dirk Mueller <mueller@kde.org>
#
# This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
# License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
# version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
# This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
# Library General Public License for more details.
# You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public License
# along with this library; see the file COPYING.LIB. If not, write to
# the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330,
# Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
# we have to change two places
# 1. the splitting of the substitutions into chunks of 90 (or even 48 in
# later autoconf's
# 2. the big main loop which patches all Makefile.in's
Before going and ask the ftpmaster (that I I suppose he's really busy)
I'd like to ask here what to do, and mainly how to avoid this
situation in the future.
What is the best way to check for different licenses in upstream
package? I usually check every source files for their licenses, but
not every file... Should I check all af them? There are some
script/automatic tool you are (as mentors whole :) using to check for
licenses (something I thing even ftpmaster used to check).
But keeping in this situation: how should I manage that LGPL license?
Kind Regards,
Sandro
--
Sandro Tosi (aka Morpheus, matrixhasu)
My (little) site: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Reply to: