Hi Micheal, On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 21:23, Micheal Waltz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:17:25PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > > Hi, in the rr/README, it states: "If you prefer, you can consider the > code in this package, and this package only, to be licensed under the MIT > license instead." > > > > This is not clear as to what the license is and I have a feeling that > FTP masters will not like it. > > Can you open up an issue on amfora GitHub repository and ask makeworld > there as to what should be the license? > > Since the record of such a conversation would be public, we can justify > in d/copyright proper licensed for everything. > > I opened a github issues yesterday for clarification[1], and upstream > responded that it can be considered dual licensed, but for Debian, > GPL-3.0 works. > > Is that enough justification to leave it GPL-3.0? Or should it go in as > dual licensed? > It needs to go-in dual licensed. > Looking through the packaging docs[2], I found the syntax for dual license > is, > > Files: rr/* > Copyright: 2020 makeworld <[email protected]> > License: GPL-3+ or Expat > It should be "GPL-3 or MIT" there should not be a "+", since the license is GPL-3 and not GPL-3 and beyond > And include the Expat license text in debian/copyright. > > Let me know which is the best way to proceed, thank you. > Admittedly, I saw this mail after I made the change myself and pushed, please have a look at my commits. I did changes that I considered sensible and uploaded to NEW. Thanks a lot for your work on this :-) Nilesh
