Bug#497703: HappyDoc copyright status clarification

[Doug Hellmann]

On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:




The source for HappyDoc is available under a BSD license.


After reading the ticket, though, I see that at least one of the files  
referenced was not original source from me.  The StructuredText  
package was released by Zope, Corp. and may have a different license  
(probably the Zope license).


So, the code *I* wrote is BSD.  Anything else will include its own  
license reference.


Doug




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#497703: HappyDoc copyright status clarification

[Doug Hellmann]

On Sep 8, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:


Hi Doug,


Hi,


I understand you are the upstream maintainer of HappyDoc.


Yes, that's right.


This bug is marked "release critical", meaning that the package is not
releasable in this state and will not ship with the upcoming Lenny  
release.


Whilst I am aware that you no longer support development of  
HappyDoc, it
would be extremely helpful if you could reply to this message  
(retaining the
Cc's) with a statement declaring the licence of the HappyDoc source.  
The

debian/copyright file could then be modified to reflect this, the bug
closed, and HappyDoc would ship with Lenny.

Alternatively, if you think Debian should discontinue shipping  
HappyDoc,

please let us know your thoughts.


The source for HappyDoc is available under a BSD license.

Since I don't support it any more, and it does not work with some  
language constructs from the newer versions of Python, I'm not sure  
you want to include it any longer.  I'll leave it up to you whether or  
not to pull it out of your release.


I am willing to give commit access to someone else if you want to fix  
the problems with the packaging (or with the language support :-).


Thanks,
Doug




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]