Hey Torsten, I uploaded a new version of the package.
On 12 September 2010 18:28, Torsten Werner <twer...@debian.org> wrote: > At least the copyright holders and/or licenses of the > following files are not documented: > > doc/sss/dbparam.dsl Now mentioned in debian/copyright. The license was not in the files themselves so I found the correct license from the docbook-dsssl project's release tarball. > doc/esub2acm.cls I now remove this file, and esub2acm.layout, when repacking. it was only used to build a PDF version of a related paper which is bundled with the source, but not built by any targets in 'build.xml'. It lacks copyright and a license. (I've left the paper that uses the files, in the interests of keeping the diff between the repacked and upstream tarball minimal.) > src/sisc/modules/srfi/srfi-*.scm I have been looking at the way other Schemes handle this. Many just give a blanket license for the entire set of SRFIs, which is indeed in the SRFI spirit. However, to be sure, I have added individual copyrights and licenses for the files where SISC uses a reference implementation of a SRFI. Let me know if you have any questions as this process does seem to have some grey areas. Cheers, -- David Banks <amoe...@gmail.com> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikpxefvs-cfj6m7frxpcumx+hnbfw=jpgeun...@mail.gmail.com
