(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

Reply via email to