Re: maple-latex_0.0.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:24 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> I just sponsored, but want to clarify:
>
> On Di, 16 Jul 2013, Luke Faraone wrote:
> > Your package is non-free and not GPL compatible, yet your debian/* changes are
> > licensd under GPLv2+. Please resolve this licensing incompatibilty.
>
> What is the problem with that? Maybe I don't grasp it, but
> I thought the maintainer can use the license for his contribution
> in debian/* spearately from the license of the main package?
Most definitely. However, the combined work must be legal. Combining a
proprietary work (the upstream release) with GPL packaging is
problematic for that reason. A more permissive license would not have
this problem.
> > Also note that DEP5 lets you only mention the relevant terms for software once
> > rather than repeating them several time as you currently do in
> > debian/copyright.
>
> I leave that to the maintainer, but if this is a problem, then
> lintian should be fixed. Anyway, it is not a requirement
> to follow DEP5 (and hopefully will never be).
That wasn't the reason for the REJECT, but if you're fixing the
aforementioned licensing issues you might as well also make other, more
cosmetic changes to debian/copyright.
Cheers,
Luke
Reply to: