Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > Did you receive my last email concerning freehep-swing (quoted below)? I > didn't receive any answer, is this because you have no time for it or > because there were technical problems with email? > > Giovanni.
Sorry, I may have missed it, my apologies. > > Giovanni Mascellani ha scritto: >> Hi, >> >> (Cc:-ing Gabriele Giacone, comaintainer with me) >> >> Barry deFreese ha scritto: >>> Hello maintainer, >>> >>> The orig.tar.gz for FreeHEP swing doesn't seem to carry a LICENSE or >>> COPYING file and I cannot find any mention of the GPL in any headers. >>> Where are you getting that it is licensed under the LGPL 2.1? >> Here is the license statement: >> >> http://java.freehep.org/license.html >> >> And here the team: >> >> http://java.freehep.org/team-list.html >> >> I've contacted upstream authors (Mark Donszelmann) about the fact that >> license pages talks about LGPL-2.1 and contains LGPL-3. He answered me >> that the whole freehep is under LGPL-2.1 and that he would had updated >> the license page (but he didn't). >> I don't remember the specific issue to be honest. The best thing to do then would be to cite in debian/copyright which files are LGPL-2.1 and which are LGPL-3. Apparently not having the full text of the license if it can be proven is OK, though I am not sure I agree with it so just re-upload. >>> Also, you are missing at least a couple of copyright holders in >>> debian/copyright. CERN and SLAC. >> Should I cite them? I cited the "real" authors (working for CERN or SLAC >> or other institutions), and nothing tells me that these institutions >> have a share on the copyright. Should I write upstream to clarify this? >> Author <> Copyright holder. As an example I have authored code for gnumach and Hurd but I do not hold copyright on the code. >> Other similar packages freehep-{chartableconverter-plugin,util,io} have >> already been accepted by FTP masters and are in the database. They're in >> a situation almost identical to this. >> Each of us have a little different view on problems so sometimes things get accepted and some don't. As I said, earlier, if the license can be proven and the license doesn't specifically state that a copy of the license MUST accompany the source, it is apparently OK. (This was news to me.) >> Thank you, Giovanni. > > In other words a simple re-upload and it may be accepted, though again I would suggest adding the actual copyright holders and mentioning any differences in license versions in debian/copyright. Thanks, and sorry for the delayed response. Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant _______________________________________________ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
