Hello, > Pointing to the wrong gpl version doesn't violate debian policy. I had the impression upstream released under GPLv2 only, but the source code files say "v2 or later". In as far as Debian distributes under GPLv3, and not the unspecified "the GPL" (which includes v1), that should be legally fine. But it's not quite the verbatim copyright info/distribution licenses required by policy. The media files seem less clear to me. To the best of my knowledge they're distributed under GPLv2 only, so that Debian cannot legally distribute these files under the license pointed to. Of course, the upstream tarball isn't exceedingly clear on this.
> Breaking a "should" clause is also not violating the debian policy. No, but apparently: "In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors." I suppose now's not a convenient time for these problems, but I thought they were serious... Best regards, Steven. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
