❦ 12 janvier 2015 15:43 +0100, Tomasz Buchert <tomasz.buchert@inria.fr> : >> - in d/copyright, you license debian/* under GPL-2+ but since the >> original software is licensed as MIT, it would be "better" >> to use the same license. This allows upstream to integrate your >> changes more easily. > > That makes sense. However, the license is *not* MIT literally > speaking (https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/mininet-discuss/2014-August/004879.html). > I renamed the license to "mit-mininet-license" and used the same > license for debian/* as you proposed. Well, the binding parts of the license is the MIT license (this is what you also said in the mailing post, isn't it?). This is a bit like the preface for the GPL license. This is not the license, but we still say this is the GPL. It explains the motivation. So, like for GPL, I think that you should say this is MIT but keep the whole text (unlike GPL which is present in base-files). I just think that by using a dedicated keyword, this would make people (or programs) think that this is a MIT-derivative (with more conditions or some exception) while this is not the case. Oh, and we say MIT, but the right keyword is "Expat". Sorry. >> I have not tested the result, but the package looks good otherwise. > > I've just reuploaded the package to mentors. It should be visible in > few minutes. I'll try the package later. -- Debian package sponsoring guidelines: http://vincent.bernat.im/en/debian-package-sponsoring.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature