On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:32:28PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > I guess it could be of higher level since it violates a must in the > policy, but...
Or maybe it is not a bug at all ... Probably you should start by pointing out exactly which MUST in policy you think is not covered here. > Please refactor copyright file so it properly lists copyright holder(s), The upstream group we pull from is listed, there is no single copyright holder. I'm not aware of any requirement to explicitly re-list everyone where there are many copyright stakeholders in many files. > brief text of license, They are common-licenses, we do what policy says we SHOULD. > what version, GPL without a version has a well defined meaning also. > Some files in the linuxwacom distribution are now covered by the LGPL, > the individual files are marked accordingly. > > list those files accordingly Why? Who will that help? None of these files are presently intended to be linked to any user application, so from a binary package user point of view it actually makes very little or no difference whether files are GPL or LGPL. If you are actually going to be hacking on the code, you'll find the relevant detail in the files that you modify and link to. I don't see much benefit to duplication that can only go out of date and become misleading. All the licences that apply to files in the package are listed. If you need finer grain information than that, it too is available in a way most people would expect to find it. If you want to submit a patch suggesting actual changes I'll certainly consider it, but otherwise I don't really see much here that constitutes an actionable bug ... Ron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
