(forgive the phone formatting)
This project is clearly stating that the intended license is GPLv2+. It
might be specified in just the one file, but that file is also clearly
intended to represent the project.
It's fine as-is, but still worth chatting with upstream. The "LICENSE" file
is a standard that comes with unexpected benefits--like automatic
compliance with some trickier (unread) clauses is some licenses.
It's also worth validating that test data can be reproduced.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 15:10 Marcin Owsiany <
porridge@debian.org> wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to package [1] a program which is GPLv2+ licensed, but as far as
I can tell, this fact is only stated in a couple [2] of [3] lines of its setup.py build script. This is a bit of an obscure way to state the license for my taste. However before I bother the upstream maintainer about this, I would like to double check that the Debian project actually has
requirements for something more explicit to be present in the upstream source. It's been a while since I packaged something, and I only have vague recollection that there were such rules, but maybe I'm confusing them with GNU packaging rules... Is it written down anywhere?
regards,
Marcin
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022074
[2] https://github.com/Rudd-O/ledgerhelpers/blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L26
[3] https://github.com/Rudd-O/ledgerhelpers/blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L57
<div dir="auto"><div>(forgive the phone formatting)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This project is clearly stating that the intended license is GPLv2+. It might be specified in just the one file, but that file is also clearly intended to
represent the project.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's fine as-is, but still worth chatting with upstream. The "LICENSE" file is a standard that comes with unexpected benefits--like automatic compliance with some
trickier (unread) clauses is some licenses.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's also worth validating that test data can be reproduced.</div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 15:10 Marcin Owsiany <<a href="mailto:
porridge@debian.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
porridge@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:
1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>I'd like to package [1] a program which is GPLv2+ licensed, but as far as I can tell, this fact is only stated in a couple [2] of [3] lines of its setup.py build script. This is a bit of an obscure way to
state the license for my taste. However before I bother the upstream maintainer about this, I would like to double check that the Debian project actually has requirements for something more explicit to be present in the upstream source. It's been a
while since I packaged something, and I only have vague recollection that there were such rules, but maybe I'm confusing them with GNU packaging rules... Is it written down anywhere?</div><div><br></div><div>regards,</div><div>Marcin</div><div><br></
<div>[1] <a href="https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022074" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022074</a></div><div>[2] <a href="https://github.com/Rudd-O/ledgerhelpers/
blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L26" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://github.com/Rudd-O/ledgerhelpers/blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L26</a></div><div>[3] <a href="
https://github.com/Rudd-
O/ledgerhelpers/blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L57" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://github.com/Rudd-O/ledgerhelpers/blob/4d30fa43a99dc9f98b46d805480b120218c377aa/setup.py#L57</a></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)