Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

After some time, I came back. Thanks a lot for all replies. I will file a bug now. Regards, Eriberto

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

On 19/10/15 17:26, Ian Jackson wrote: A copyright licence does not need to be in writing. (In the UK, at least[1], and I would be surprised it if were different elsewhere.) Of course in practice it is a good idea to have a clear and explicit statement, in writing, but that doesn't mean that a

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Ben Finney writes ("Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?"): > Eriberto Mota <eribe...@debian.org> writes: > > Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package > > moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong? > > The ‘CHANGES’ file c

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Ben Finney writes ("Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?"): > > The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October 2002”: > > > > October 2002 > > - Released version 2.5.3 > >

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: 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: 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