On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:40:55 +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > 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 :) Thanks. > ---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--- Would be ok for me, but I'm not exactly proficient in legalese. > > > 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 :) Go ahead! (Rewriting the shell mess in perl is also allowed :)) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian gnu/linux user, admin & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Art Garfunkel: The Same Old Tears On A New Background
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature