On Wednesday 28 June 2006 19:25, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote: > We had a package that we knew was dfsg compliant, I had removed the lib > stuff which had several license problems because of that and then renamed > it to dfsg as we had agreed that it was dfsg compliant, now...
Manty, Sorry. That was my fault, in uploading without fully checking the new upstream tar ball. The get-orig-source target was supposed to strip out all the non-dfsg stuff, but didn't due to a typo in the sed script. I guess it is also a symptom of svn-buildpackage as one doesn't spend much time in the upstream build-area, not that that is an excuse. I'll roll back and upload 0.8.51.dfsg-2.orig.tar.gz will all of lib/ stripped out. Then we can work through in slow time the licencing for EC and see if we want to reintroduce at some time. > 1- the echo cancellation stuff doesn't have a license we can use to say > it's free, this has been discussed before (see Emil Stoyanov [1] message to > the list) and I didn't read anybody saying that it was no longer like that Agreed we should remove this EC patch until it is DFSG licenced. > 2- the iLBC stuff is stil non-free as it used to be that way and it hasn't > changed its license. Yes that was never meant to be included, but the stripping routine didn't work as desired. > I hope I'm missing something with all this, otherwise I don't know what we > are playing at, this seems completely nonsense and a Debian developer > should be more cautious with what he uploads at least once he knows there > are problems with licenses on some parts of a software. Point taken. I will be more careful with upload... Thanks for picking this up so early. Mark
pgp7tx5JHlWZn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
