Hi Ansgar, Mattia, Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> writes: > I also checked the initial Debian package on snapshot.debian.org > (version 20050930-1). It also has only the non-free license in the > individual files, but states "Dual GPLv2/ACPICA Licence" in d/copyright. > It also has the BSD-3-clause-or-GPL-2 bit in d/copyright. > > It's likely that it was already dual-licensed, but that this wasn't > documented in the tarball itself. I'm not sure why they now have two > tarballs instead of one with both licenses... The "GNU General Public > License or via a separate license that may be more favorable to > commercial OSVs" (from the FAQ) seems also wrong given there are *three* > licenses: the non-free one, a 3-clause BSD and the GPL-2 Well, according to https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/84b8d0fd, the dual-license tarballs are only available starting from version 20110211. That version can indeed be downloaded as unix2 tarball.
Mattia: is it reasonable to update this package to a newer version, based on one of the unix2 tarballs? -- Best regards, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
