Hello On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:45:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > My reference comes from that GNUGPL.TXT in the source. > > > > The LICENSE file is a bit short but the GNUGPL.TXT file covers > > everything just as it should. It just has an uncommon name, that > > is all. > > The LICENSE file there is, alas, not sufficient. It isn't in any way
No it is not sufficient. But the GNUGPL.TXT file should be right? > associated with the copyrights in the actual source files, and that's > what actually matters. I wish it were not so, but thus it is. We > cannot tell from that file which things it covers, and that makes it > not a valid license. :( Well this is the case with _many_ _many_ packages that debian ships. A few developers (including myself) tend to forget to include the GPL header into the actual source files. If we need to be that picky we have to make a very deep review of all our packages. That would hold the release for quite some time. Including all my own (self written) packages. That would be at least cron-apt, debarchiver, omlcs, hp-search-mac and some more. > And, worse yet, this LICENSE file does not exist upstream in the > current version (2.3), which makes me worry. For this reason I have > been attempting to contact upstream. No but it exist an COPYING file instead with full GPL license information. > > I can not see anything wrong with this. If you read the debian > > copyright file, you can see that I refer to that file instead > > of the file LICENSE. > > That's the right thing surely; no objection to doing that. > > > Or do you still think I did something wrong here? > > Nothing hugely wrong; and fixing all the other bugs was certainly a > very good thing to do. I would have appreciated it if you had read > through the discussion on the present bug and, since I mentioned it on > debian-qa and in the bug log recently, communicated with me before > closing it. Sorry I just could not find anything wrong with the package, and can still not. > But no harm has been done; including the 'LICENSE' file in > debian/copyright is surely better than nothing, but it alas, does not > solve the problem, so the bug should remain open. If upstream can't > say what his actual licensing intentions are, then we will have to > remove the package. (Which is, frankly, no huge disaster.) If you want I can upload the latest upstream version instead that still have copyright information. Regards, // Ola > > Thomas > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
