No problem. However, the "License:" still doesn't reflect the license
of the software. According to LICENSE:
We provide this software under a slightly modified version of the
Apache Software License. The only changes to the document were the
replacement of "Apache" with "Pcapy" and "Apache Software Foundation"
with "CORE Security Technologies". Feel free to compare the resulting
document to the official Apache license.
The `Apache Software License' is an Open Source Initiative Approved
License.
Therefore, I think a better value for the field would be:
License: Apache with Pcapy modifications
Ready!
Also, please remove the "All rights reserved." text here:
Copyright (C) 2003-2011 CORE Security Technologies <oss@coresecurity.com>.
All rights reserved.
Ready!
Oh, and please fix the years. Nowhere in the code I see "2003-2011".
Doing a basic grep, I see that the year should be 2014.
Ready
I see that the contributions under the debian/ directory are released
under GPL-3+. That's absolutely fine (I am a GPL advocate as well).
However, I must warn you that the Debian patches will also be released
under this license, which may be problematic if/when you decide to
upstream them. But I understand this is the current situation anyway.
You may want to try to contact Arnaud Fontaine and ask him if he's OK
with changing the license to Apache in the future.
Ok. I will contact Arnaud Fontaine to ask about it. I think it's ok for now. In the next release of package I can update this field.
Thanks, but what you did is incomplete. In order to create a new
package, you have to create an entry for it on d/control. What you did
(add ${python3:Depends} to python-pcapy's Depends) is wrong because
you're basically pulling Python 3 dependencies for a Python 2 package.
Please have a look at other packages under them DPMT and check their
d/control; you will find many examples of how to create Python 3
packages.
Ready!
Thanks for your help!
Regards!