On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:38:56AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Packagingwise, I think it is fine, but I'm umcomfortable with the two patches. First, please use the patch metadata as described in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/.

Oh, only saw this _after_ sending off same suggestion myself. Sorry for the noice :-)

But as for the actual patches, I'm rather uncomfortable with
them. The add-license patch adds the complete text of the GPL. I'm not
sure how the ftpteam thinks about it, but to me it feels very
strange. Is upstream aware of the problem, can't they just reissue the
tarball with the complete license text? Moreover, quoting the part "How
to Apply These Term to Your New Programs" is usually also helpful.

I'd be more comfortable if the GPL text was just included in debian/,
read, as non-patch, but still, I really think this file should be part
of the orig.tar.gz. So another approach would be to repackage the
tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could
also use the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch.

I really don't get the logic of _adding_ a license at all.

I know that GPL boilerplate mentions that you are supposed to receive a COPYING file together with source, but I do not see it being _mandatory_ so if upstream fails to do it I suppose we are allowed to redistribute verbatim - i.e. also lacking same file.

If it is not for licensing reasons but due to being meeded by the code at runtime, then I suggest copying/symlinking the file below /usr/share/common-licenses instead.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to