Hi Miguel, In lieu of a new upstream release, an email from the upstream clarifying the license for those files could be added to debian/copyright would probably be sufficient. Another option would be to drop the files under ./test/ in a DFSG version of the tarball. Andrew Ross did this recently for another package I sponsored. Cheers, tony On 01/12/2011 08:50 PM, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:53 PM, tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> wrote: >> Hi Miguel, > > Hi Tony, > Thanks for taking a look at my package so quickly. > >> The packaging looks good. However, unfortunately there are a number of >> source files that carry neither a copyright nor an author. For example: >> >> ./src/java/org/xhtmlrenderer/tool/Boxer.java >> ./src/java/org/xhtmlrenderer/simple/PDFRenderer.java > > What worried me about this package were not the .java files without > copyright notice but all those .dtd, .xml and .mod files but fortunately > they are licensed under a free enough license. > > What I could understand from the documentation was all source code > is licensed under LGPL-2.1 except some files bundled from > another projects (e.g. .css test files). Their LICENSE file states: > > "All source code to Flying Saucer itself is licensed under the > GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL); you can redistribute > it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public > License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version > 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." > >> It might be worth clarifying with upstream before uploading to the archive. > > I guess I can contact Joshua and ask about this. > Though they don't release frequently, it seems to be some activity on > upstream mailing lists. > > Cheers, >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature