license on upstream web site, not in tarball

Hi, If an upstream publishes a license (or link to GPL) and copyright on their web site but not in their tarball, how do people feel about that? Should it just be noted in a comment in debian/copyright? Or should the packager create a repackaged upstream tarball with a copy of the web site

Re: license on upstream web site, not in tarball

On 28/08/14 21:09, Simon McVittie wrote: On 28/08/14 19:28, Daniel Pocock wrote: If an upstream publishes a license (or link to GPL) and copyright on their web site but not in their tarball, how do people feel about that? Should it just be noted in a comment in debian/copyright? Copying

LGPL project with EPL dependency

I understand that Eclipse Public License (EPL) v1.0 is not GPL compatible. This suggests that EPL is LGPL-3 compatible: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/03/msg00017.html What about LGPL-2.1? There have been various other comments about it online, but none appeared definitive, e.g:

DEP-5 copyright names on a single line

In the DEP-5 doc http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#copyright-field Any formatting is permitted years of publication for one copyright holder may be gathered together One thing is not mentioned explicitly: can multiple names be on the same line if the years are the same? E.g.

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of erotic interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

On 11/03/14 22:23, Sam Kuper wrote: On 11/03/2014, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: Many people wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. The consequences of even showing sympathy for this type of package could well have personal consequences for some people well