FIRST: GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID CC'S. I OBVIOUSLY READ THE LIST. Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> (26/04/2009): > > JFWIW, I guess you want license-related stuff to go into > > debian/copyright, rather than README.source. > > Actually, I would use debian/copyright for simply specifying licences, > and debian/README.source to explain how the source files have been > prepared, exactly like Charles is doing.
What if you actually check the contents of README.source? Quoting it[1,2]: | The manual contains a non-free statement but was relicenced by Upstream, see | http://phyml.googlecode.com/files/phyml_manual_11March2009.pdf That pretty much sounds like clarifying a license issue. Exactly why I said it should have gone to debian/copyright instead, so that people checking licenses might have a clue. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2009/03/msg00041.html 2. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/phyml/ Now, you say Charles explain how the source files were prepared, that's not even correct. The other part is: | The sources of the PDF manual are uuencoded in debian/phyml_manual.tar.gz.uu. I | asked one the upstream maintainer to include them in the same tar archive as | PhyML itself. That doesn't say what license applies, where it was downloaded from, etc. Charles, please note I'm not challenging what you did, only Noah's wild claims. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
