On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:33:59AM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > I'm not sure why there'd be any repackaging needed? aiui no files have > been removed, the license information contained in them has simply been > updated. correct. so if you want to update the "old" package to the newly licensed documentation, then you have to repackage the source file. essentially you would create a source package with the "old" source and teh "new docs. but see below about the changes in the docs... > Have upstream stated whether the relicensing applies retrospectively, or > only to 0.6.7 and above? they have not, but I am confident that they will if asked to. but more importantly: the contents of the documentation have actually not changed, just the license. the upstream does not need to apply the license retrospectively, anyone can now choose which license to use. in my opinion if we want to use the new license, the only celan way to do it is to repackage the source as described above. but since the problem is going away with this anyway, I was hoping the release team would decide to simply tag this wheezy-ignore. please also note the difference between this case and some other licensing problems: sometimes we (debian) are not *allowed* to ship a package in the state it is in. in these cases the problem does need to be fixed immedately of course. in this case we *choose* not to ship packages with this type of license (through [0]). since the problem is going away by itself anyway now that upstream has changed the license, ignoring it for wheezy seems ok to me. but of course repackaaging the source + tpu is ok as well, will do that if asked to. regards robert [0] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature