Re: [opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> writes:
> My reference comes from that GNUGPL.TXT in the source.
>
> The LICENSE file is a bit short but the GNUGPL.TXT file covers
> everything just as it should. It just has an uncommon name, that
> is all.
The LICENSE file there is, alas, not sufficient. It isn't in any way
associated with the copyrights in the actual source files, and that's
what actually matters. I wish it were not so, but thus it is. We
cannot tell from that file which things it covers, and that makes it
not a valid license. :(
And, worse yet, this LICENSE file does not exist upstream in the
current version (2.3), which makes me worry. For this reason I have
been attempting to contact upstream.
> I can not see anything wrong with this. If you read the debian
> copyright file, you can see that I refer to that file instead
> of the file LICENSE.
That's the right thing surely; no objection to doing that.
> Or do you still think I did something wrong here?
Nothing hugely wrong; and fixing all the other bugs was certainly a
very good thing to do. I would have appreciated it if you had read
through the discussion on the present bug and, since I mentioned it on
debian-qa and in the bug log recently, communicated with me before
closing it.
But no harm has been done; including the 'LICENSE' file in
debian/copyright is surely better than nothing, but it alas, does not
solve the problem, so the bug should remain open. If upstream can't
say what his actual licensing intentions are, then we will have to
remove the package. (Which is, frankly, no huge disaster.)
Thomas
Reply to: