Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: No, it violates DFSG §3. If the package violates DFSG, so it should be moved to non-free archive. Because the package d4x does not have an maintainer (it is orphaned again) Who can do this? Should it do the QA group? Or can it be an NMU? I maintain Debian packages only since three months, so I don't want do it by myself. Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote: ie; Not even a Debian Maintainer can modify the software to package it. So this software looks like a non-starter for inclusion in Debian, even in non-free. So what is the right way? Who can / must decide this? If non-free is not possible, 'd4x' must be removed from debian archives ... On the other side 'd4x' was distributed by Debian since more than 6 years. There are some users ... Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: No, it violates DFSG §3. So I can do nothing. Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his old email adress, but I think I get no answer. Thank you for this effort, it is necessary to try. Today I have received his answer mail! And he says only: I think that D4X is not needed anymore without informations about licensing. Can you remove that part of the work, either replacing it with an equivalent work under a compatible free license, or modifying the function of the program to work without it? No, because it is the fully source code of this package. Thanks for your answers. After some searching I have seen the successor can be 'uget' aka 'urlgfe'. So there is only on step to do: Move d4x into the non-free archive. I hope the Debian QA Team will do it (the have done the last updates). Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Hello, I want to overtake the package d4x, which is still in Debian repository. And this package need some development (upstream), which I could do, too. The old developer = author have deleted the hole package website and nobody have heard of him for a long time ( 4 years I mean). But now I have seen, that this package is not fully licensed under the Artistic license 1.0 (as everybody would thought), but each source file have the following header: /* WebDownloader for X-Window * * Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim * This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it * without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified * program but you can distribute unmodified program. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ Now I ask me if this package agree with the DFSG ? Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his old email adress, but I think I get no answer. What can I do, if the author doesn't answer? Is there a way? Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
