Ed Hill writes: > Hi folks, > > I'm an occasional Debian user and, while doing package reviews for > Fedora Extras, stumbled into the Eterm mix-of-source-licenses situation > described below. > > The following email was sent to the Debian Eterm maintainer. I'm > forwarding it to this list because I've not (yet) received a response > and because I'm curious what "right thing to do" is within the Debian > packaging rules (or conventions or...?) for cases such as this one.
This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream maintainer to sort out license incompatibilities. Poorer solutions are to change just the Debian package by finding compatibly-licensed alternatives or ripping out the conflicting code. As a purely pedantic note, the enlightenment/eterm CVS browser at SourceForge makes it looks like grkelot.[ch] are under the same BSD-with-advertising license that Michael Jennings' "the rest" code uses. Not specifically mentioned in the bug report is the (L)GPL incompatibility with the classic advertising clause that is used for the BSD-licensed portions. (If you follow debian-legal, I apologize for cc'ing you directly, but it seemed the more reliable way to get the response through.) Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
