requesting sponsorship for pd-ggee

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 15:01 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:16, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:11 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 14:23, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Nov 14, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> On Nov 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 23:18, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> pd-ggee is a short-form dh package that is a lightly modified version of
> >> >>>> the standard Makefile. pd-ggee in on git.debian.org/pkg-multimedia.  It
> >> >>>> is a library without depends that are new packages but a couple of other
> >> >>>> ITP'ed packages depend on it.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-multimedia/pd-ggee.git;a=summary
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm not quite comfortable with the license, and I am no legalese
> >> >>> person so I try to stick to standard-licensed software... Could you
> >> >>> please run this license through the debian-legal list to get some
> >> >>> input on it? My concern is specifically about the last paragraph.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, the license is a bit weird, I don't know what its "officially"
> >> >> called, but it is the same text as the [incr Tcl] license, which is included
> >> >> in Debian:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/i/itcl3/itcl3_3.4~b1-2/itcl3.copyright
> >> >>
> >> >> The only difference is that the GOVERNMENT USE section is more verbose in
> >> >> the itcl license, but they reference the same regulation numbers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It seems to be the Tcl/Tk license:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.tcl.tk/software/tcltk/license.html
> >>
> >> Indeed. Please add the pristine-tar data to the repository, so I can
> >> generate the appropriate tarball.
> >
> > Oops, sorry, I forgot to push the tags and branches I suppose.  They
> > should be up there now.
> 
> The changelog was not correctly dated. In order to avoid even more
> delays I updated it myself.
> Uploaded.

Sorry for my continuing lameness on that timestamp.  Once I make updates
to these packages, it'll become part of the natural flow since dch is
the easiest way to update the changelog.

Thanks for uploading, time to dig up a couple more! :-D

.hc