Upstream projects that do not comply with their license (MIT/EPL/...)

Tue Jul 30 11:24:46 UTC 2013

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:33 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Wolodja Wentland <debian at babilen5.org> writes:
> 
> > OTOH the *intention* of upstream is pretty clear and I am sure they won't take
> > us to court over this, but I wouldn't want to rely on that.
> 
> If they clarify their intent in email or on the github issue, that's
> good enough, we can slap on the license ourselves. In this case, this
> has to be clarified in d/copyright with appropriate references & quotes.

Right, that would surely be enough and I've seen examples of this in the
archive before. Lets hope that the upstream authors reply in due course to
ensure that this issue doesn't delay us for too long.
-- 
Wolodja <babilen at gmail.com>

4096R/CAF14EFC
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-clojure-maintainers/attachments/20130730/a795d6d4/attachment-0001.sig>