(forgive the phone formatting) This project is clearly stating that the intended license is GPLv2+. It might be specified in just the one file, but that file is also clearly intended to represent the project.
It's fine as-is, but still worth chatting with upstream. The "LICENSE" file is a standard that comes with unexpected benefits--like automatic compliance with some trickier (unread) clauses is some licenses. It's also worth validating that test data can be reproduced. On Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 15:10 Marcin Owsiany <porri...@debian.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to package [1] a program which is GPLv2+ licensed, but as far as > I can tell, this fact is only stated in a couple [2] of [3] lines of its > setup.py build script. This is a bit of an obscure way to state the license > for my taste. However before I bother the upstream maintainer about this, I > would like to double check that the Debian project actually has > requirements for something more explicit to be present in the upstream > source. It's been a while since I packaged something, and I only have vague > recollection that there were such rules, but maybe I'm confusing them with > GNU packaging rules... Is it written down anywhere? > > regards, > Marcin > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022074 > [2] > https://github.com/Rudd-O/ledgerhelpers/blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L26 > [3] > https://github.com/Rudd-O/ledgerhelpers/blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L57 >
