On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 02:09:44PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 12:51 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:08:20AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
>
>Ok, I updated the debian/copyright and pushed the changes to
>git.debian.org. Its ready
Am 05.01.2011 20:09, schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
> The library as a whole is licensed using GPL-2 by upstream in the
> LICENSE.txt file. The relicensing was done upstream.
You are probably referring to the following clause in the LGPL-2.x:
"You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 12:51 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:08:20AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >
> >Ok, I updated the debian/copyright and pushed the changes to
> >git.debian.org. Its ready for re-upload.
> >
> >I just wanted to add that the previous condit
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:08:20AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Ok, I updated the debian/copyright and pushed the changes to
git.debian.org. Its ready for re-upload.
I just wanted to add that the previous condition was legal, LGPL-2.1
files can be incorporated into a GPL-2 project,
Ok, I updated the debian/copyright and pushed the changes to
git.debian.org. Its ready for re-upload.
I just wanted to add that the previous condition was legal, LGPL-2.1
files can be incorporated into a GPL-2 project, so it was correct to say
that the whole project could be used under the GPL-2
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 08:56:54PM +, Torsten Werner wrote:
I have found several LGPL licensed files but this license is not
documented.
The CDBS copyright-check routine would have catched those earlier on.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843
Hi Maintainer,
I have found several LGPL licensed files but this license is not documented.
Torsten
===
Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
concerns.