Hi again, Bob Proulx wrote:
> This is normal only. Please do not overinflating bug importance. Your call, of course. I personally consider it minor. But so I understand for the future: isn’t this a policy “must” directive? I am thinking of [1], which says the copyright information and license must be reproduced verbatim in the copyright file. > The original license was the 4-clause BSD license by the Regents of > the University of California. They have authorized the removal of the > advertising clause in any of their material bearing their 4-clause > license. That allowed all distributors to distribute files with the > 3-clause license. This is specifically allowed from the Regents of > the University of California and does not cover other licensees > distributing with the 4-clause license. > > Tony Finch has been removing old code and writing new code to replace > it and has replaced the entirety of the previous with his own new > code. Along with it he has replaced the copyright with his notice. > He has chosen a 2-clause license. Yes, that sounds reasonable. It was a good change in my opinion, since it decreases the complexity of the license for unifdef.c. Tony did not write the manual, so that is still under the 3-clause BSD license. > I released my code with an all permissive license. Yes. > Tony's test harness has been released into the public domain. AIUI that is considered legally problematic in some places, so he used the “CC0 public domain explanation”. Where releasing code to the public domain is valid, that is what that means; elsewhere, it is a license. It was probably the right choice to make it clear to everyone what their rights are. Doing that requires a long document, unfortunately. > The entire project as a blanket has been placed under a 2-clause > license. As stated in the project files all contributions are under > the 2-clause license found in unifdef.c. I do not understand your first sentence here. I think the README is saying that patches will be assumed to be under the 2-clause BSD license. > Fortunately all of those are compatible free licenses. Yes. Further, we are complying with all of them, by including the notices that are missing from debian/copyright in /usr/bin/unifdefall and /usr/share/man/man1/unifdef.1. Hoping that is clearer, Jonathan [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
