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

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




On Aug 18, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Ola Lundqvist wrote:

Hello

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> writes:

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.

I agree that this is a bug and that what is licensed should be specified either in a boilerplate or in a separate file. I'll fix this and add the standard GNU boilerplate to the mmake script. In the meantime I hope that this response should make it clear what my licensing intentions are. (FYI: I can't recall that I have gotten any mail from anyone from debian before regarding this particular package, except when it was first included in debian years ago).

Regards
--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland


--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland
Mobil +47 97141255



Reply to: