On 26/04/12 11:41, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote: > I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in > package will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper" > around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from > LICENSE. > > Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper now to do nothing?
The requirement for main is that you don't cause any non-free code to be present in the archive: either in the orig.tar.*, the Debian diff/tarball, or the binary packages. (That's why patching out non-free code is not OK, because that still results in Debian distributing one copy of it in the orig.tar.*, and a second copy in the "-" lines of the Debian diff.) This situation is a bit confusing because it sounds as though there are two files involved, both called "jsmin": "the library" is a translation of the original jsmin non-Python library into Python ("Good, not Evil" license inherited from the original jsmin non-Python library), and "the wrapper" wraps it in a common API (Expat license). Is this the case? If so, you must not distribute "the library" but I think it's OK to distribute "the wrapper". If that's the case, and the orig tarball doesn't contain an embedded code copy of "the library", then yes I think you can just patch "the wrapper". If your orig tarball does contain an embedded code copy of "the library", you must still repack the tarball to remove it. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f992b89.5040...@debian.org