There probably isn't much awareness about these copyright issues upstream, so the best thing for us might be to stick to what we already had. (After all, the old license statements are still there, too.)
I've fixed the last lintian nag now and I think it's all good to go. Cheers, Nico On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:37 PM Drew Parsons <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 03:07 +0800, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > So if their licences have been simplified further then yes, do update > > debian/copyright to match the source package. > > > > Actually, better take each case one by one. EXAMPLES/cfgmr.c, for > example, still has its GPL copyright notice. Looks like they've just > automatically prepended a BSD notice on top of it, which won't do at > all. The difference between GPL and BSD actually means something. You > just can't take GPL code and make it BSD just because you feel like it. > People (or U. Minnesota in that example) have specific reasons for > choosing GPL rather than BSD, reasons which are violated by BSD. > > Given the clear discrepancy in the files, it looks like we should > escalate the matter. I'll ask upstream to audit their code licences. > > Drew >
