Hi Daniel, On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 01:34:48PM -0500, Daniel Echeverry wrote: > > Hi, > > I have reviewed all the scripts from the list, I fix some typos, but > there are other scripts that have 2 different licenses. Below I show > you the scripts that were settled and those who need to reviewed > again. > [snip script output]
Thanks for settling these. > > [1]: Declare a header with a license and below another license ( is it > necessary contact the upstream ?) > Fixed: error found and fixed > OK: OK > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For this case it is necessary to contact the upstream to verify the license? > I have looked at many of these and it seems the problem your are noticing is they have a license text block as a comment at the top, but the "license" specified for the %IRSSI settings is not referring to that specific license. Since the "license" setting allows plain text without a standard format, I beleive that the authors have simply been less precise here without realizing the potential confusion. As long as they specify the same type of license, but the block is more precise about the specific license versions, I think it will be fine for us to just use the license text block which is more precise and limiting. > Thank you very much!! > Thank you again for your work, and patience, on this! I may be able to work on this tonight, but hope to get this uploaded by tomorrow, if not. Cheers, Ryan -- -- 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/20120503170504.ga17...@dev.home
