On Fri, Feb 16, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > Er, what? "the authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, > distribute, and license" doesn't grant to amsn the right to modify? > > Yes, there is a missing license statement, and that is a serious bug. But I > don't understand the claim that the file shouldn't be distributed.
Hi, when I look for license.terms in the package, I see this: % grep -r license.terms * utils/base64/yencode.tcl:# See the file "license.terms" for information on usage and redistribution utils/base64/base64.tcl:# See the file "license.terms" for information on usage and redistribution utils/base64/uuencode.tcl:# See the file "license.terms" for information on usage and redistribution utils/macosx/QuickTimeTcl3.1/movie.tcl:# See the file "license.terms" for information on usage and redistribution utils/BWidget-1.7.0/Makefile.in:# See the file "license.terms" for information on usage and redistribution utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: Removed LGPL license; added Tcl-license terms. utils/http2.4/http.tcl:# See the file "license.terms" for information on usage and And when I have a look at utils/BWidget-1.7.0/LICENSE.txt as suggested by the grep results, I actually find the terms of the Tcl license as stated in Philippe's link. Thus, the terms are in the package, but not explicitely. Is it necessary to create a license.terms file here and put it in /usr/share/doc/amsn for instance? Isn't is sufficient to ask upstream to correct this in a later release? Is it worth mentioning in README.Debian? -- Mohammed Adnène Trojette
