Hi JP,
I had the following bug report about the freewheeling package in debian.
If I understand correctly, adding the following header to each of the
source files would be the correct approach:
/*
Copyright 2004-2008 JP Mercury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This file is part of Freewheeling.
Freewheeling is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
Foobar is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with Foobar. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*/
You could also switch to GPL 3.0, replacing the above 'version 2' with a
'version 3' and update accordingly the file COPYING to match this file:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
In any case, the '+' (e.g. 'any later version') seems to be required to
link with future versions of libgnutls.
Let me know what you think!
Thanks, Paul
----- Forwarded message from Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Subject: Bug#456433: freewheeling: license information insufficient
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:39:27 +0100
From: Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package: freewheeling
Version: 0.5.5-1
Severity: serious
Hello,
I am currently checking which packages will break since libgnutls-extra
and libgnutls-openssl switches from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+. freewheeling
links against one of these libraries but its license is unclear:
* debian/copyright says: "You are free to distribute this software
under the terms of the GNU General Public License." This fails to
say which versions of GPL are acceptable.
* Upstream sourcecode is not properly licensed. None of the sourcefiles
contain a license statement. The only single evidence that the
software should be GPL(?) is that a file COPYING, consisting of a
copy of the GPL is included.
Please ask upstream to
a) clarify the license (GPLv2, GPLv2+, ...)
b) properly license he software, adding a license
statement to every sourcefile
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
Thanks, cu andreas
----- End forwarded message -----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
