-=| gregor herrmann, Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:57:50PM +0200 |=- > On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:56:43 +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > I see. While I think the Copyright: part may work, the License may > > be tricky. Not only because the "superset" may ot be that clear, > > but also because there if upstream changes their license, that > > would mean that all contributors automatically change the license > > of their work. Smells bad to me :) > > Hm, yes, might be a problem. > But it has to be checked manually anyway, and most contributors would > agree to anything like "as long as it's free and compatible with > upstream it's ok". (And that's the reason why archived > acknowledgements of this policy would be helpful.) Okay, time for proposals :) ---x---x---x--- S A M P L E ---x---x---x--- The packaging work is free software and can be distributed under any terms that are compatible with the licensing terms of the upstream software, as long as they also satisfy the Debian Free Sofftware Guidelines. ---x---x---x--- S A M P L E ---x---x---x--- > > > > What do we do with the few packages that are not on > > > > CPAN, although they are perl modules? > > > Nothing? > > > (Except adding a commented out /dist/ line to d/watch so that > > > packagecheck doesn't try to create one. But I think at the moment all > > > d/watch files are already up2date.) > > I meant with regard to the warning you talk about. These packages > > would be false positives. X-Not-CPAN: ok? > > As long as there is the commented /dist/ URL packagecheck won't > complain. Not very elegant but works :) Ah, good to know. Perhaps one day I will modify packagecheck to also honour some header like the one above. Just to satisfy my desire for purity :) -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature