Re: RFS: scim-python: python bindings and input methods for scim

[Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>]

Hi Bas,

I may have made confusing statement for casual observer...

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:09:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:06:27AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > In License, you have:

This should have been "In copyright" file describing license term in the
package, you (Mr. Li) have:"

> > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 2.1 of GNU Lesser General Public
> > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1.
> > 
> > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 3 of GNU Lesser General Public
> > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3.
> > ---
> > 
> > These are missleading.
> <cut out stuff about GPL-3>
> > I do not think you need these additional (and very misleading when mentioning
> > GPL3) text here.  They are properly addressed in respective license or in
> > source code as "or (at your option) any later version."
> 
> You seem to have misread the license file (I didn't check, but only read
> what you quoted).  It talks about LGPL-3, not about GPL-3.  It's not
> misleading, just complete.

I clearly made you confused. If you read packager's copyright file, you
should have understood my comment.

> The files are distributed with multiple licenses, namely LGPL-2,
> LGPL-2.1, and LGPL-3.  Later versions are automatically added to that
> list as they are released.

Yep.

> As always when receiving multiple licensed files, debian/copyright
> should list them all.  Listing licenses which aren't released yet isn't
> possible of course, but listing all currently available options is a
> good idea IMO.  That's what the part you quoted does.

Yep.  The issue I complained is authogonal to what you are telling us.

> Thanks,

Thanks,

Osamu