Ardo van Rangelrooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At least one of these (libtest-inline-perl) still has the copyright in > the "old" way which you don't accept.
*sigh* no, it's not. | This is the debian package for the Test::Inline module. | It was created by Ivan Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> using dh-make-perl. | | The upstream author is: | | Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:37:11 -0800 | From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Subject: Re: Test::Inline copyright | Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | OPYRIGHT | Copyright 2001-2003 by Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. | | This program is free software; you can redistribute it | and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. | | See http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html The key difference is that upstream chose one of perl's licenses. Your package had only "under the same terms as Perl itself" (with all the associated problems previously discussed). Now granted, libtest-inline-perl should refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/ rather than the copy on the Perl web site and I obviously misread that. Bad me. [I guess that since you care so strongly about this, you've already filed a bug on the package right?] But the actual point is libtest-inline-perl has a license (but refers to the wrong external file), whereas libxml-filter-sax1tosax2-perl had no (unequivocal) license (and didn't refer to _any_ external file). > This is getting redicilous. Actually I think you're already being far more than ridiculous. -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
