On 2015-10-11 07:54, James Lu wrote: >> d/copyright: >> - The license appears to be GPL-3, not GPL-3+ (at least in the handful >> of files I checked). This also requires correction of the free- >> standing license block (the last paragraph) > > I see. Ubuntu's packaging wrote the license as GPL-3+ for both the > packaging and the source, but I guess the license of the individual > files must prevail here. Fixed. Hm, I just realized that I overlooked something here, namely the license of the packaging that came from Ubuntu :-/ that makes things a bit more complicated, because: * It is clear that upstream wanted GPL-3 for the upstream source * It is clear that Ubuntu's packager wanted GPL-3+ for the packaging, even if this motive was inspired by the erroneous assumption of the GPL-3+ for the upstream source (asking the packager directly might resolve that) IOW, my initial advice was wrong. You need to keep GPL-3+ for the packaging, and add GPL-3 for the upstream source. Sorry about the mixup! >> - There's a formatting issue in the free-standing license text (line >> 27 is not indented) > > I'm not sure what this means. Is it supposed to be indented to the width > of "X-Comment: "? That's what I did. Oh, I see what you meant to do now -- it wasn't lacking indentation, it was beginning a new field. However, in that case, the field's name is just "Comment" [1], without the "X-" prefix. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#stand-alone-license-paragraph Regards, Christian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature