[Debian-med-packaging] spread-phy_1.0.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 12925 March 1977, Andreas Tille wrote:

>> Also, several files seems licensed under LGPL-2+, not LGPL-3+, at least
>> according to license headers in them.
> Here I have a question:  If the header in the file says:
>  * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
>  * of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

> and the main licensing file says LGPL-3+ - in how far do I need to
> explicitely specify LGPL-2+.  In my opinion this would make the
> intention of the ending '+' void.  IMHO the main license file does
> express an opinion which says LGPL-3+ and thus all those files become
> automatically LGPL-3+.

> Please feel free to discuss this at any more apropriate place if
> you think this is not correct.

And why do you, as "just" the Debian packager, take away the users
(easy) knowledge they can use this as LGPL2+, not only 3+. Not everyone
might like, or be able, to use a 3+ version. It doesn't hurt anything to
list it as it is.

Also, it is kind of harsh to drop an entire version out of the license,
just because...

-- 
bye, Joerg
Lisa, Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and eskimos.