On 9 May 2016 at 04:31, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> wrote:
>>Waiting for his reply.
>
>
> this seems the most important bit, I would appreciate you opening a bug report against
> the package (severity:important), explaining why you want a version in experimental,
> leaving xnox the time to answer properly, and don't forget to propose yourself as
> comaintainer.
Ok, I'll do this when this package is ready to upload.
>>This was discussed with the D-I team some time ago, and they said it
>>was better to patch partman-btrfs and debian-cd. Both have been
>>patched and are now in the archive.
>
>
> ok, so please ask ftpmasters to remove it, otherwise the old source package will still be in the archive.
> (and the old binary too)
>
Per https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals , I filed Bug #823848
"as an RC bug on the package".
>>What is the convenience script used to do copyright review? :-) I'll
>>fix these in my next upload.
>
>
> not sure, maybe "cme fix" can work, or license-reconsile, even if I usually look at the diff between the
> current version in archive and the version that I have to sponsor.
I did two runs of license-reconsile, after fixing the MIT/X11 license
issue for config/install-sh. In the first run I kept the existing
GPL-2+ designations; wc -l returned 212 lines. For the second run I
changed most instances of GPL-2+ to GPL-2; wc -l returned 126. Based
on this, and the fact that the official btrfs-progs*/COPYING file
states:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
I believe this package was wrongly designated as GPL-2+ in
debian/copyright quite some time ago... I've attached the output of
those license-reconsile runs.
Thank you for notifying me of this Gianfranco. It also affects
oldstable and stable. Is this an RC/serious level bug for all
affected versions? I will open the bug for this once I've patched all
affected versions, since it's something I'm now already working on :-)
Might as well fix them all at the same time, right! Please confirm
that I'm not mistaken in my conclusions regarding the licensing of
this package.
Kind regards,
Nicholas
Attachment:
with_GPL2.xz
Description: application/xz
Attachment:
with_GPL2+.xz
Description: application/xz