Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 04:00:26PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> So what we need it to keep the old license header around, whenever there
> was one. I'll make sure this applies before the package is uploaded.
It appears that upstream rejects this idea. Since I don't believe it's such a
strong requirement (I'm pretty sure I could find many counter-examples), I'm
going to upload the package in its current state:
- When old file has no copyright/license information, only the new
copyright/license header added by Hubert is present.
- When old file has copyright/license information, the copyright line is
preserved, and merged with Hubert's copyright line and license terms.
Old license terms (LGPLv2.1) are discarded since they're compatible
with GPLv3.
and let the FTP team decide on that. If they rule that this needs to be fixed,
I'll add the missing license headers from original code myself, diverging from
upstream tree if necessary.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: