On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > 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.
Hi Michael, Please pardon my Debian-ignorance, but where is the correct place to "file this bug"? I want to get the bug officially noticed in part because upstream has said (and I'm paraphrasing here): "Debian has no problem with the current Eterm license terms so you shouldn't, either." > 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. Yes, true. > (If you follow debian-legal, I apologize for cc'ing you directly, but > it seemed the more reliable way to get the response through.) No worries! I appreciate your help! Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/ phone: 617-253-0098 fax: 617-253-4464 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]