Hi Kartik,
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Kartik Mistry wrote:
What should we do next here?
please add the explanation of Tino as comment to your debian/copyright.
When you do this for the other apertium packages that appear in NEW as
well, those package could be processed in a timely manner.
Thorsten
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 12:56 AM Tino Didriksen <[email protected]> wrote:
I can answer that...
The official stance of the Apertium project is that when one of our repositories don't
clarify the license beyond putting the GPL COPYING file in the repo, then it should be
interpreted as the "or any later" version of it to maximize reusability.
The data is often mixed with GPLv3 data at compile time, often by the same
authors, but where the GPLv2 stuff just predates wider GPLv3 adoption.
E.g., see email
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06931.html
by Francis Tyers for reference. Both Francis Tyers and myself are on the
Apertium Project Management Committee ( http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/PMC ).
-- Tino Didriksen
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 20:00, Thorsten Alteholz
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Kartik,
COPYING says that the license is GPL-2 only.
Please add a note in your debian/copyright why it should be GPL-2+.
Thanks!
Thorsten
--
Kartik Mistry | કાર્તિક મિસ્ત્રી
kartikm.wordpress.com
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
