Hi again, sorry for not realising that you were alredy doing the right thing with jquery.min.js; I made too hasty conclusion from the absence of patch in the source package…
Here are answers to your other questions. Le Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 06:25:28PM +0300, أحمد المحمودي a écrit : > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:03:36AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > > 1) files/okasha-docbook.css is not documented in your copyright file > > (Copyright 2003 Tammy Fox, Garrett LeSage, and Red Hat, Inc. > > Copyright 2005 Tommy Reynolds <tommy.reyno...@megacoder.com> > > License: GPL ) > > Thanks for spotting that. I wonder though, how you spotted it, > licensecheck only checked the python source files. I often use ‘grep -ri copyright .’ and pipe the result in a couple of ‘grep -v’ commands if there is a frequent motif that I would like to remove from the output after I made sure that it corresponds to already documented files. > > 2a) files/jquery.min.js is not the “preferrable form for modification”. > > However, since your package is non-free, this is not a blocking problem. > > I don't understand this part. In order to save some bandwith, the size of this javascript file is reduced by removing whitespace and comments, and shortening variable names. This results in a file that is not the “preferrable form for modification”, since new versions are made by working on the original large size version, and reducing it again. It is a similar situation as having a source file and a binary file, and therefore in Debian (not non-free), in my understanding, it is not allowed to keep such a file in the source package if its source is not in as well. > > In addition, I see that you chose the GPLv3+ for your packaging work; I do > > not recommend it, since it is not compatible with “Waqf”: It may cause > > headaches > > if you would like to forward patches or files (manpages, …), that would be > > GPLv3+ unless stated otherwise. > > Yes, this issue was raised by Jakub Wilk (who sponsored the package), > and since I do not have any patches, I don't see a problem. Anyways, > in case there are patches, I think I can put them under Waqf. (or > GPL3+ or Waqf ?) In that case, my personal choice is to provide the packaging work under terms that allow relicensing (like the BOLA license for instance). But “GPLv3+ or Waqf” is also a good solution. > > 1) files/okasha-docbook.css is not documented in your copyright file > > (Copyright 2003 Tammy Fox, Garrett LeSage, and Red Hat, Inc. > > Copyright 2005 Tommy Reynolds <tommy.reyno...@megacoder.com> > > License: GPL ) > ---end quoted text--- > > GPL = GPL-1 or what ? Although the authors probably intended GPLv2 or superior, we can not tell for them. Therefore I would pick GPLv1+ (“any version of the GPL”). Fortunately, the full-text copy of this license is making its way in /usr/share/common-licenses. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100711002846.ga30...@merveille.plessy.net
