<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ftpmaster@debian.org">ftpmaster@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi maintainer!<br></blockquote><div>Hi, developer here :) <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I'm going to accept your package, but please get in touch and get the license<br>
statements updated. While all are DFSG free, they have some discrepancies<br>
about the versions of the licenses.<br>
<br>
On the one hand you say in debian/copyright GPLv1+ or Artistic. On the other<br>
hand however, the README file states LGPLv2.1+ or Artistic 2.0, while on the<br>
third hand many source files (e.g. xs/*) state LPGLv2.1+, and finally<br>
library/SourceView2.pm states "the same as perl itself" (which would GPLv1 or<br>
Artistic).<br></blockquote><div>I think all of this mess is my fault. I never know which license to use :(<br>Which license is the most suitable for a Debian release? I'm not too picky about the licenses of my software. What's important for me is that people can take my work and use it to their liking.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Please clear this up. While the intention to release everything free is there,<br>
it's quite confusing ;)<br></blockquote></div>I can make a new release of upstream that will fix the license mix.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Emmanuel Rodriguez<br>