On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 22:06 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > 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 > Okay, I've just added this and pushed it. Thanks Ioan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part