[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#255955: [opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]

Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> writes:

> Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
> I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
> not include such source comments (hsftp).

It depends on the particular case.

> That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
> to be clear.

No no, I think you still don't understand.

Merely distributing a copy of the GPL *means nothing*.  What must
happen is the author must say "this work is distributed under the
terms of the GPL."  It is totally irrelevant what any of the files are

In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
*which files* are being licensed.  The normal way is to put the
license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
LICENSE, or by some other way.  He did not, and that's a bug.

The latest version, by contrast, contains no such statement at all,
anywhere at all.  It simply distributes the GPL (which the old version
did too).  It is totally irrelevant what filename the GPL is put in.

What makes this a serious bug, and something that could warrant the
package being removed, is that we should have real doubts about the
intentions of the upstream maintainer.  He *removed* the grant of
permission to copy--not just failed to include one--and he has
declined to answer repeated queries from Debian about what his
licensing intentions are.

> Did you actually read what I wrote? The new upstream has a "COPYING"
> file with full GPL statement. Is that not enough as copying file
> (except for source notes)?

No.  It is totally irrelevant what the filename is.  Distibuting a
copy of the GPL is not, in any way, shape, or form, the same thing as
licensing a program under the GPL.

> Do you really think this is a problem still? It can not be of 'serious'
> severity at least. Not at least unless you want to keep the sarge
> release away for a big number of months.

Hogwash.  The consequence is that mmake would not be part of sarge.
Mmake is not a very important program.


Reply to: