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

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

could you please fill in the "answering template" to let me know what to
do in this totally unexpected trouble I'm now facing when trying to
simply follow a renaming of upstream?

Kind regards

       Andreas.

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:43:01PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:25:09PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > 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...
> 
> ... just because upstream might have forgotten to change some license
> strings in single files because they assumed droping a single LICENSE
> file is sufficient?  I admit I fail to see the point for nitpicking
> here.  I confirm that your arguing about hiding some chance of using a
> few files under LGPL2+ is theoretically true but of no practical
> relevance (and as "just" the Debian packager I feel well informed enough
> to estimate that the case has no practical relevance).
> 
> To keep a long discussion short:  Do you want me to mention the fact
> that a few files of the source of the just renamed package (former
> phy-spread was only renamed to spread-phy) to let you accept the package
> 
>   [ ] yes, please mention LGPL2+
>   [ ] no, we accept it with current debian/copyright
> 
> I just will follow your requirement.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>        Andreas.
> 
> -- 
> http://fam-tille.de
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Debian-med-packaging mailing list
> Debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de