Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please stop being rude when you're wrong.
Pot, kettle, black. > The general license is attached to *one copyright notice*, that for the > lead author. > If the license was clearly issued by more than one copyright holder > (which it's not), and the general file stated that the *license* applied > to all files in the distribution "unless specifically declared otherwise > in an individual file", that would be different. Instead, the file > states that the *copyright notice* applies to all files in the > distribution "unless specifically declared otherwise in an individual > file", and proceeds to give a license from that copyright holder alone. While it would be nice to clean up this sort of thing just to avoid future confusion, this doesn't strike me as a serious problem worthy of removing the software from Debian unless the upstream copyright holders indicate that they really had intended to offer no license for those files. That's a very strange and very unlikely interpretation. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
