Krzysztof Burghardt wrote: > Updated once again. I have listed all copyright holders.
good so far. as it's late already (00:28 localtime). i'll will do an intensive check tomorrow to make sure we didn't miss any file/license. btw, i didn't found GPL code in the package, so, binaries of the non-ssl sources are properly distributable. > i had a loo > Virtually every file in this library have different licence: BOOST, > 4-BSD, 3-BSD and others. Even one copyright holder have files on more > then one license. Do I need to list each file and its licence (or files > grouped by license)? There are ~800 files to check!? > > I have put licenses for code portions like zlib routines or xml parser. > Providing which file has which license in such case is overkill, isn't > it? i wouldn't call it overkill. but if you want to note it more simple down as you have it right now, we can try if ftp-master accept it. i for myself have always written them expclicitly, e.g. for your package, the zlib files would be: Foundation/include/Poco/zlib.h, Foundation/src/zlib.h > Will copyright holders claim that I infringe on their rights? we assume they can do that, so we can't link the GPL code against openssl without explicit permission by upstream. would poco work with gnutls? > Should I prepare both ssl and non-ssl packages? Or ssl only? so, ssl is then not possible, except you could make it work with gnutls. > Yes, but if it is another upstream tarball should I make another source > package? although some people do include multiple tarballs into one orig.tar.gz and unpack them on build-time, i consider this to be quite ugly, so it was implicityly clear that you'll package it as a seperate source package :) -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
