Re: [RFS]: python-py{ode,epl}

2006-06-28 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
Dear Mentors, I am sorry that I had to fix few things up and thank everyone who helped me to make those packages 99.9% Debian ready (I leave .1% possibility that I am still missing something...) Could any one sponsor our kiddies? > http://pkg-exppsy.alioth.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/s

Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL

2006-06-28 Thread Tyler MacDonald
Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, if you run "perl ppport.h --strip", all documentation *and* > > licensing information was removed. My feeling is that if the authors of > > Devel::PPPort allow the license to be removed (while still leaving other > > comments intact in the hea

Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL

2006-06-28 Thread Craig Small
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:13:44PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote: > This makes me wonder about ppport.h in perl-XS packages; by default, > the generated ppport.h comes with a note saying it's licensed under the same > terms as perl itself. > > However, if you run "perl ppport.h --strip"

Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL

2006-06-28 Thread Tyler MacDonald
Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > reluctant to do this. Too much information kills information. > I don't for any of my "autoconfed" packages. The output files have > "do whatever" type of license, as does most output files of this type. This makes me wonder about ppport.h in per

Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL

2006-06-28 Thread Craig Small
> I have one last question: the package uses autoconf. Do I have to > mention every autoconf-related file and remind their copyright holder > and licence in the copyright file of the Debian package? I am a bit > reluctant to do this. Too much information kills information. I don't for any of my "au

Re: [RFS] qterm: BBS client for X Window System written in Qt

2006-06-28 Thread Lars Kruse
Hi, > It's not lintian and linda clean. lintian report following > warnings[2], linda report similar warnings. > > [2] > $ lintian qterm_0.4.0pre4-1_source.changes > W: qterm source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/manpage.1.ex > W: qterm source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/manpage.sgml.e

[RFS] qterm: BBS client for X Window System written in Qt

2006-06-28 Thread LI Daobing
Hello, I have papared a new deb package for qterm(0.4.0pre4-1), it provide a new upstream. It can be download from [1]. [1] https://alioth.debian.org/project/showfiles.php?group_id=30987 It's not lintian and linda clean. lintian report following warnings[2], linda report similar warnings. [2]

Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL

2006-06-28 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:07:18AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit : > The LGPL specifies that the user may redistribute the software > under the LGPL, or the GPL. So you (as packager) can simply choose to do your > redistribution under the terms of the GPL. It's a good idea to mention this > in the co

Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL

2006-06-28 Thread Craig Small
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:07:18AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:12:10PM +1000, Craig Small wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:02:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > It appears that, although the COPYING file and the website > > > claim that TreeView X is GPL, all t

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

2006-06-28 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060628 00:59]: > - According to the header, the script "match" was [EMAIL PROTECTED] > It has no explicit license, but is so easy and short, that I don't > think one could claim copyright for that (the german word for that > would be "Sch?pfungsh?he").

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

2006-06-28 Thread George Danchev
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 12:10, Frank Küster wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seems that Northrop Grumman's corporate mail server does not remember the > > guy in question: > > > >  - Transcript of session follows - > > > > ... while talking to gateway.grumman.com.:

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

2006-06-28 Thread Frank Küster
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems that Northrop Grumman's corporate mail server does not remember the > guy > in question: > >  - Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to gateway.grumman.com.: DATA > <<< 550 5.0.0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... We do not accep

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

2006-06-28 Thread George Danchev
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 01:58, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > Let's start with something simple: > - According to the header, the script "match" was [EMAIL PROTECTED] > It has no explicit license, but is so easy and short, that I don't > think one could claim copyright for that (the german word f

Re: COPYING says GPL, but all headers say LGPL

2006-06-28 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:12:10PM +1000, Craig Small wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:02:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > It appears that, although the COPYING file and the website > > claim that TreeView X is GPL, all the source files have Library GPL > > headers (except the Nexus one