Mohammed Adnène Trojette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Frank Küster wrote: >> tags 411078 -patch >> thanks > >> > utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: Removed LGPL license; added >> > Tcl-license terms. >> Actually, I have no idea why you think the grep results "suggest" to >> look into utils/BWidget-1.7.0/LICENSE.txt for the license terms of files >> in other subdirectories of utils/ than utils/BWidget-1.7.0/, while the >> actual text suggests a filename "license.terms". This looks to me just >> like guessing, and it may actually be right. > > Well, uh, it is not guessing: see > utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: [snip] added Tcl-license terms"
That only shows that some developer thought that the Tcl license is the right license for some part of BWidget. Looking into the file it seems clear that it applies to the complete BWidget Toolkit, and looking in Changelog shows that the person who made the license change is also the one who initially worked on that part when the project was imported, so I guess we can rely on that. It does not, however, say anything about files outside utils/BWidget-1.7.0/. >> Err, no, that would be a bug. The license information should be in >> debian/copyright, complete, and nowhere else. > > That's what I did in the patch I've sent to the bug report. Why did you > remove the patch tag? Because it's not a valid solution to just write in Debian copyright what you *think* the license is. We actually need facts. So far, there is no hint in this bug log that the license that applies to utils/BWidget-1.7.0/* also applies to any file outside this subdirectory. Or well, there's a "hint" by Filipus what the license could be for the single file that he initially reported (and it's the same license), but as I already wrote I do not think there's enough information to take that as a fact. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
