On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:49:29AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also. > Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could > consider to add a note in its README.Debian. Unluckily, 1.2.11 is not > functionally the same as 1.2.10, so a patch should be avoided... > Hints?
All you need is to get a statement from the author that the re-licensing applies retroactively; then post this information in a public place and let the archive administrators know about it. The version in woody will be de facto DFSG-free, even if it doesn't look like it from its debian/copyright file. It won't be necessary to rev the package in woody to "fix" the problem, since the intangible (but verifiable) declaration of the copyright holder is all that is required. A similar thing happened with XFree86 a while back. -- G. Branden Robinson | I am sorry, but what you have Debian GNU/Linux | mistaken for malicious intent is [EMAIL PROTECTED] | nothing more than sheer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II
pgpMDMNY7Uqtk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
