Steve Borho wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Ludovico > Cavedon<ludovico.cave...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am packaging hgtk for Debina/Ubuntu. I need to collet all copyright >> information for the file sin the tarball, and I have a couple of questions: > > BTW: You may want to get in touch with Max Bowsher, who is also > generating debian packages.
Ah, I did not know... There was no ITP (Intent To Package) bug for tortoisehg, so I assumed nobody was working on that... Max, the packaging I did so far is here: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/tortoisehg.git the only thing left to fix is the copyright and then version 0.8 is ready for upload. However, I think we can merge the work, feel free to improve it and add yourself as maintainer if you want. I was planning to give it to a sponsor for upload into unstable by the end of the week... but I can wait. Let me know! >> * Most of the files include no license statement, however >> -COPYING.txt is provided and is a GPL v2 license >> -the PKG-INFO file says GPL2 >> >> Are these files licensed under the GPL v2 only, or "GPL v2 or later"? > > Most of this has been resolved on the tip of the stable branch. GPL2 > is the explicit license Interesting! Thanks! >> Should we assume that this is the license provided for *all* the files >> without proper statement? Even for hggtk/logview/graphcell.py, whose >> copyright holder is "Canonical Ltd."?? > > This file comes from bzr-gtk, which has a generic GPL license (GPL > version 1, 2, 3). > I think it is ok for us to distribute this as GPL2. I see. Thanks for the info. >> * hggtk/dialog.py includes this statement: >> # This software may be used and distributed according to the terms of >> # the GNU General Public License, incorporated herein by reference. >> but no license is incorporated... same question about the version as >> above... > > Again, I think it's safe to distribute this as GPL2. If I'm wrong, > someone please send me a link explaining why. This particular file, I > would like to get rid of. Graphcell.py would be much more difficult > to replace. Yes, I think it is safe. I was just asking for clarifications. I need to be very precise in the debian/copyright file, otherwise it does not conform to Debian policy and gets rejected. >> * Files in thgutil/iniparse include the statement: >> # All Rights Reserved. See LICENSE-PSF & LICENSE for details. >> which looks GPL-incompatible. Moreover LICENSE-PSF and LICENSE are not >> provided... Looks like the license is the "PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION >> LICENSE VERSION 2", and they say it is GPL-compatible... however the >> complete license statement of those files should be included in the >> tarball... > > Iniparse has been removed from the repository. It's now a separate download. Ok, I will include the correct licenses for iniparse just for the 0.8 upload to Debian. It is a mix of MIT and PSF licenses. Thank you for you quick answer! Cheers, Ludovico ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-develop mailing list Tortoisehg-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-develop
