Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Hi guys, I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree). When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me. The first issue is the license used by mpage: * Permission is granted

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text. However, in addition to the license in the README file, it also comes with COPYING and COPYING.LESSER files with the text of GPL and LGPL, which seems to imply they wanted to allow distributing the program under (L)GPL. Seems worth a

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Thanks Riley and Ángel! Ángel, The copyright notices in headers should be considered as priority over licenses inside generical files. So, the upstream intents provided by generical copyright files shouldn't be considered when packaging and if the files have headers. I understood your words, but

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:23:50 -0200 Eriberto Mota wrote: > Hi guys, > > I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree). > > When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full > revision in source code and I found two doubtful

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

2015-10-18 20:11 GMT-02:00 Ángel González : > > Kudos to Ben for noticing that old Changelog entry. > Yes, yes. Ben was really well. I will wait new opinions and I will open a serious bug. After this I will contact the upstream. I was afraid to open the bug without ask for

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

On 18/10/15 23:27, Eriberto wrote: Thanks Riley and Ángel! Ángel, The copyright notices in headers should be considered as priority over licenses inside generical files. So, the upstream intents provided by generical copyright files shouldn't be considered when packaging and if the files have

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:02:08 +0200 Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 15 octobre 2015 10:26 +1100, Ben Finney  : [...] > > There are many cases that are clarified by that > > definition, to the point of clear resolution. > > The recent discussions on debian-devel@ shows that

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:57:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should > > *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most > > commonly used

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:12:21 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote: [...] > Yes, this is a nice summary. Thank you very much; You're welcome! > would it be possible > to add it somewhere to Debian (Wiki or so?) I tend to avoid the Debian Wiki, because it is a licensing mess: almost nobody cares about

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:50:06 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > For further details on what I think about the definition of source, > > anyone interested may read my essay: > >

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Eriberto Mota writes: > I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree). > > When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full > revision in source code Thank you! This is important work to be done by the maintainer of any package

Re: Source files

> > > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of > > > the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making > > > modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual > > > source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the > > > existing

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Thanks Riley and Ángel! Ángel, The copyright notices in headers should be considered as priority over licenses inside generical files. So, the upstream intents provided by generical copyright files shouldn't be considered when packaging and if the files have headers. I understood your words, but

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Le Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 06:23:50PM -0200, Eriberto Mota a écrit : > > When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full > revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me. > > The first issue is the license used by mpage: > > * Permission is granted to