Re: No license distributed with sources

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:54:45PM +0200, Gediminas Paulauskas wrote:
> 2010/2/8 Tres Seaver <[email protected]>:
> > In the mean time, you could patch the file in via your debian/ control
> > stuff, I guess.  The Ubuntu / Debian interpretation of "legality of
> > distribution" is not controlling outside their universes, I think.

Well, technically I suppose we're all violating the law by not following
the ZPL requirement of keeping the licence text next to the files it
covers when we redistribute them.  It's unlikely for the Zope Foundation
to sue any of us, thankfully.

> Yes, I was told that patching the source to add the file would be
> enough to get them accepted.  Provided that I ask the upstream
> developers to do that in the future for real.

You're an upstream developer too, Gediminas, now that you've received
commit access.  ;-)

Incidentally, would Debian/Ubuntu consider it acceptable to have
upstream tarballs repackaged with the missing licence file included but
without bumping the revision number and uploading a new egg to PyPI?  I
know they do this kind of repackaging when they need to remove
non-DFSG-free files, or debian/ directories in upstream tarballs, but
I've never heard of them adding files.

Marius Gedminas
-- 
http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3 consulting and development

_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [email protected]
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLcQx2kVdEXeem148RAtLRAJsG6qiN7iM23upn7pAuaczE6NSd7gCfcghC
hHj9z5HqRFMKQCPkzkGZSU4=
=oUox
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----