Re: lem_2022-12-10+dfsg2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:43 PM Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu 05 Sep 2024 at 11:23pm +08, Bo YU wrote:
>
> > But you suggest me to apply LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception for
> > ocaml-lib/pmap* and ocaml-lib/pset.*, I am not sure when I look at
> > these files again. For example, the copyright from
> > ocaml-lib/pmap.ml[2]
>
> I'm suggesting it from looking at the file headers themselves.  Don't
> they say it has the exception too?

Yeah, they said they have exceptions on the headers themselves. I mean
I ignore these exceptions from headers in the last upload(my fault).

This time, I would like to ask for your help to confirm, can I use
`LGPL-2-with-linking-exception` instead of
`LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception` from your original suggestions[6]?
Because from my understanding, for these files, the copyright
license(LGPL-2)is below from LICENSE[7] with expectations in headers
themselves.
```

The following files are modified versions of map and set from the
Objective Caml library and are distributed under the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL
PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 as below.

ocaml-lib/pmap.mli
ocaml-lib/pmap.ml
ocaml-lib/pset.mli
ocaml-lib/pset.ml

```
Is this okay?

[6]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2024/09/msg00005.html
[7]: https://github.com/rems-project/lem/blob/master/LICENSE#L69
>
> > Thanks for reminding this again. Here I have one question that needs
> > to be verified. Taking these files as an example[4], could we convert
> > into [5]?
>
> Yes, that's fine.  I know what you mean about amplifying rights claims,
> but copyright is not the same as an AUTHORS file saying who made the
> most substantive contributions.
>
That is great, I understand it now.

Thanks for your time and help!

BR,
Bo

> --
> Sean Whitton