Hi Bas, I may have made confusing statement for casual observer...
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:09:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:06:27AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > In License, you have: This should have been "In copyright" file describing license term in the package, you (Mr. Li) have:" > > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 2.1 of GNU Lesser General Public > > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in > > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1. > > > > LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 3 of GNU Lesser General Public > > License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in > > /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3. > > --- > > > > These are missleading. > <cut out stuff about GPL-3> > > I do not think you need these additional (and very misleading when > > mentioning > > GPL3) text here. They are properly addressed in respective license or in > > source code as "or (at your option) any later version." > > You seem to have misread the license file (I didn't check, but only read > what you quoted). It talks about LGPL-3, not about GPL-3. It's not > misleading, just complete. I clearly made you confused. If you read packager's copyright file, you should have understood my comment. > The files are distributed with multiple licenses, namely LGPL-2, > LGPL-2.1, and LGPL-3. Later versions are automatically added to that > list as they are released. Yep. > As always when receiving multiple licensed files, debian/copyright > should list them all. Listing licenses which aren't released yet isn't > possible of course, but listing all currently available options is a > good idea IMO. That's what the part you quoted does. Yep. The issue I complained is authogonal to what you are telling us. > Thanks, Thanks, Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]