Assuming you're like to start with 0.9.5, I'd suggest we make the changes to the files and release a 0.9.5r1 based off the 0.9.5 tag.
Let me know if Marek's proposed changes are satisfactory or even necessary. I don't think adding the copyright holders to COPYING creates an issue, however I don't see the value. Debian has approved the MPL in its current form with that verbiage AFAIK: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#MozillaPublicLicense.28MPL.29 Gavin On Friday, July 29, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Marek Majkowski wrote: > On 07/29/2011 02:53 PM, Jan Dittberner wrote: > > I'd like to package Pika for Debian. The associated ITP (intend to > > package) bug in the Debian bug tracking system is [1]. > > Great news! > > (I CC Gavin, the maintainer) > > > The Pika web site states that Pika is dual licensed as MPLv1.1 and > > GPLv2.0 which both are acceptable free software licenses. What made > > me worry are two things: > > > > - a missing declaration of copyright holders with copyright years in > > the COPYING file > > We could copy the copyright holders from LICENSE-MPL-Pika to COPYING, > though we will end up in the same stuff in two places. > > > - the statement "All rights reserved." at the end of LICENSE-MPL-Pika > > that is normally used in proprietary license/copyright texts only > > This is taken from the MPL template. > > Marek
