On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:10:41 +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote: > > The python package does not have anything special mentioned in > > d/copyright, so I'm not sure what I should put, if anything. > When a license statement raise questions once, it's bound to raise questions > later. So you should add explanations in a "Comment:" field of the copyright > file to avoid future discussions. Feel free to point to discussions in this > mailing list or to cut'n'paste whatever explanation I wrote. I'm still not 100% sure the line of reasoning holds but we can try :) In any case: - the different copyright/license for these files have to be mentioned explicitly in d/copyright - and I agree with you that a Comment: explaining what's going on here is highly recommended Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Peter Ratzenbeck: Planxty Irwin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature