Am 21.11.18 um 19:57 schrieb Thorsten Glaser: > Hi Emmanuel, > >> 2.1 under the CDDL+GPL and the version 2.1.1 under the EPL+GPL. So it's >> still correct to state that the code is licensed under the CDDL. > > the code, perhaps, but not the source package you received. > > Why don’t you just change the copyright file and upload a > fix instead of trying to weasel out causing a lengthy > discussion? That would save time. > > > Markus, I lack words to reply to your second mail politely, > therefore, I shan’t. It’s really… ARGH!
It is the other way around. The point is there is no Policy violation and there is no serious issue. What you have should done instead is to file a normal bug report about a documentation issue and possibly attach a patch. But instead you wasted everyones time. We are not here to discuss licensing terms with you. Don't your company have lawyers? When will you start contribute something meaningful for a change?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
