>From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 04:04:49 2007
>[2] If you are ok with including *all* the applicable copyrights in
>the copyright file, this again solves the problem. We can give the
>complete & the right information
> - Installed files from the package are in the public domain
> - Additional test script that just co-exist(no compile/link/include
> dependency) in the sources is under GPL2.
that's certainly fine, there are packages that do include
multiple copyrights/licenses (and some that should but don't).
>[3] If the above 2 options introduce overheads for you and you are not
>keen on getting into it, the third option is that if anyone else is
>will to submit, I am ok with them taking it through the remaining
>process and submitting as contributors instead of me. The copyright
>can be just the GPL related.
and that's fine too, somebody else can certainly go take it up.
>I checked some of the packages in ON and I see many instances where
>even in those packages where a GPL library/binary is delivered, the
>copyright doesn't say so. This is not a right position to be in.
>Ex: hal
well that's probably wrong - in fact it's been wrong to put
gpl'd libraries in /usr/lib, so it's strange libhal is there
(but I haven't read any of its arc/legal cases so maybe
that was somehow covered). And it should have the gpl in the
copyright file.
Though the gpl snippet not being there wouldn't surprise me
since that's a recent thing they are adding on.
Mike
