Re: [opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> writes:
> > 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.
Well, we should file bugs against them!
> 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.
I'm not suggesting expunging them. But it's a bug which should be
fixed. We can't pretend it's not a problem, because it really is.
It has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
In this particular case, upstream has not given *any* indication,
after having been asked for some time. That makes me much more
nervous. Also, the file "LICENSE" was removed in the most recent
release. What does that mean?
> > 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.
Alas, the latest version is even worse, because it doesn't have the
"LICENSE" file at all. There is no way we can possibly distribute
that.
We have to have *something* from upstream. The existing Debian
version, with the LICENSE file, is a bug, and a serious one, but it's
fixable and doesn't require immediate worry. It does require some
communication from upstream.
The most recent version of mmake, however, is totally undistributable
by us; it contains no permissions to copy of any kind.
Thomas
Reply to: