On Monday 18 April 2016 17:53:32 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi > > >I have no opinion about section. So change it to optional? > > I think you should
Ok, I will change it. > >So what do you suggest? What is common in this such case? > > use for debian packaging the same upstream license. Files are under public domain. Mark then debian files under public domain too? > >I'm not lawyer. > > well, the package is simple, with just a bunch of files, they won't > loose too much time in reviewing it :) I'm not lawyer and really do not know how to check trademark violation or similar things. I have never did it for any (software) project/files, I have no idea how you imagine such review... Also different countries have (probably) different laws about copyright, trademark, ... and so in different countries such thing can have different results. What I can say... those text files which are in package contains file names for building reverse hash table (mapping from hash to file name). Files were generated by brute-force, trying to find input (file name) which maps to generated hash. So I think that such action does not violate trademarks... But if you are interested for details, then read: http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
