Hi, The package has been rejected by the FTP masters, because the python module Warlock is licensed under the Apache-2.0 license, while the packaging is under GPL. This creates a bad situation if we start patching upstream code, with a mix of license in it. Let me cut/past the exact quote from Paultag:
On 07/28/2013 08:00 AM, Paul Richards Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote: > It's asserted in d/copyright that the patch is licensed under the > GPL-2+. This code is being mixed with apache2 code and creates a > messy situation. > > Could you please contact the author of that patch and double-check > the terms of that patch, and correctly note it in d/copyright if > this was a mistake? > > Also, it's Forwarded: no; perhaps you should forward that patch > upstream as well! I fully agree with Paul on this one. As a consequence, I think it would be reasonable to re-license the packaging and switch it to Apache-2.0. Since this is also coming form Canonical (I honestly can't tell which part I wrote myself, and I don't remember the history of the package), then I need Canonical agreement to relicense. So, would you guys agree to switch to to Apache-2.0 for the whole of the package, or at least license the patch under Apache-2.0 (but I think that's bad practice and would prefer that the whole of the package is switched to Apache-2.0)? Let me know, Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: This has been a recurring issue that I've asked Canonical to use Apache-2.0 license for packaging, as I was expecting something like that to happen. It would be nice if this time, my request is really taken into consideration for future packaging work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
