Rejecting powerdebug

[Martin Pitt]

Hello Steve,

Steve Langasek [2011-01-24  8:06 -0800]:
> Martin, I don't think this is a good reason to reject the package.  I think
> I've made this point before in discussions that there is no reason in
> general to require upstreams to include the license in any particular form
> as a condition for archive acceptance - redistributing the tarball with a
> reference to the EPL webpage is perfectly legal, it's only Debian/Ubuntu
> requirements that dictate the license must be included in the package... 
> and for that, including it in debian/copyright should be entirely
> satisfactory.

I haven't checked the EPL license in detail, but it seems to me that
the GPL demands this quite explicitly:

  4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
  [...] and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

To me, "along with the program" means "in the tarball", if I give away
the tarball. But IANAL, if you have some better-founded proof that
this is satisfied with an URL to the online license text, I'll STFU :)

I just find it good practice in general, too.

> Uploaded, thanks.

... and re-reviewed/accepted. Thanks for the fixes!

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-archive/attachments/20110124/e626b8c3/attachment.pgp>