Re: [opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
Hello
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:45:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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
No it is not sufficient. But the GNUGPL.TXT file should be right?
> 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. :(
Well this is the case with _many_ _many_ packages that debian ships.
A few developers (including myself) tend to forget to include the
GPL header into the actual source files. If we need to be that picky
we have to make a very deep review of all our packages. That would
hold the release for quite some time.
Including all my own (self written) packages. That would be at least
cron-apt, debarchiver, omlcs, hp-search-mac and some more.
> 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.
No but it exist an COPYING file instead with full GPL license information.
> > 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.
Sorry I just could not find anything wrong with the package, and can
still not.
> 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.)
If you want I can upload the latest upstream version instead
that still have copyright information.
Regards,
// Ola
>
> Thomas
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: