On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 08:41:02PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > Hi Gabriele,
Hi Vince, > About the re-licensing of php_ext/ming.c and php_ext/php_ming.h, does > the relevant Github issue [1] mean that the re-licensing wasn't > actually ACK-ed by all the contributors of these files? This sounds > like this might be a blocker? > [1] https://github.com/libming/libming/issues/42 I've just updated the list few hours ago, just 2 missing contributors, 4 commits. Not sure that commits in question are legally significant and can block relicensing. Opinions? [also CC'ing d-legal] > debian/copyright: > - various files in e.g. src/blocks/ are also copyrighted by Klaus > Rechert, not just the specific stanzas you've listed in d/copyright > - perl_ext/SWF/BinaryData.pm:# Copyright (c) 2009 Albrecht Kleine > - a small portion of ch/pkgcreate.ch is Copyright 2005 > SoftIntegration, Inc., public domain > - java_ext/* doesn't seem to be licensed under LGPL-2.1+ as claimed by > d/copyright, but under this license instead: Thanks for spending time on d/copyright. Just fixed what you pointed out in git. > - debian/ming-fonts-{dejavu,opensymbol}.copyright not converted to > DEP-5; that's fine, although it's worth pointing out that > ming-fonts-opensymbol.copyright has an unversioned symlink to the > LGPL. Now I know that even binaries can have their own copyright file, which replaces global one (always good?). Fixed in git. > There's a variety of other things that can be done to > improve/modernize the package, e.g. DEP-3 patch headers, conversion of > d/rules to dh shorthand, etc., but I suppose you want to tackle the > copyright/licensing issues as that's what got the package removed from > testing in the first place? Exactly. -- G..e -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150518235143.GA15854@jessie01