severity 386406 important tags 386406 + moreinfo retitle 386406 Some bits might not have been properly relicensed, but please provide/gather more information stop
Hi, On Tue, Sep 12, 2006, Don Armstrong wrote: > Loic: The only actual (minor) issue here is that the package doesn't > reference the GPL and include the copyright+licensing statement of the > parts that are GPL licensed. It would also be useful to include the > actual copyright statements of the parts which you have included the > LGPLed license statement. [Adjusting the severity accordingly; feel > free to override.] The upstream tarball is said to be LGPL, and was relicensed as such after the message the OP links to. This is the result of an upstream relicensing work, which was announced publicly and followed by a tarball release. My understanding is that the submitter claims that this relicensing is incomplete and/or erroneous, but doesn't provide any further information than references to messages before the relicensing happened. Even if relicensing the Debian package would have some consequences, I am open to this solution *if* this has some factual and recent ground. I currently didn't see any useful new piece of information, and would like to get convinced that the licensing is required (since I had already convinced myself that the LGPL was fine when I prepared the package in the first place). Perhaps the best way to achieve this is for the OP to clarify the conditions of the relicensing with upstream. Before anyone suggest I should be the one doing this, please recall that I already did it when uploading to Debian, and there's no new piece of information in the report. Thanks for discussion, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>