Kel Modderman writes: > Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an > interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible > for the actual license change, and not "Smart Link Ltd."? What do they > think about it? Is it your lawful right to change it? Please write a > brief reason for the change, but a bit more informative than the > reason stated in debian/changelog (#327545 revealed nothing).
"Smart Link Ltd." describes a copyright owner, not a license. As a MODULE_LICENSE string, it is meaningless, and should be replaced with an appropriate string. Ideally the upstream author would do this, but I see no harm in a Debian package doing it as long as the new string remains accurate. Are you suggesting that the module's license is in fact not "Dual BSD/GPL"? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
