[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

JackTheDipper wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
>> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
>> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
>> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>> #
>> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
>> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
>> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality.
>> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.
>> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is 
>> not approriate for legalize.
>> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.
> It's the same automatically generated file as used by any other
> gettextized software i know (like, again, nautilus and serpentine.. or
> other GNOME projects), including the license.. and including the "file
> file" bug. Are you sure that this is really not suited for Debian main? :(
This is indeed a wide-spread problem. The maintainer of the debian
package of intltool (jordi) has already been notified and a bug against
GNOME's intltool has been filed (
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508320 ).

As I'm not allowed to change the license on my own and due to the fact
that (almost?) all internationalized GNOME projects and many more are
shipping with this file - also the corresponding debian packages - , i
guess, this bug shouldn't prevent this package from being uploaded.

I don't know if a lintian rule would be good to tell all packagers to
fix the license (once a fixed version is available) or if it's enough to
just wait for fixed GNOME projects.

Any other comments on this package or is it ready now?

P.S.: The mentioned gpl utility is NOT by the FSF but belongs to the
autotools package, sorry (see
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~iam/docs/tutorial.html , section "Invoking
the `gpl' utility" for more information).

Reply to: