Re: [mat-dev] [Tails-dev] What is the status and license of …

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Autore: Chris Marusich
Data:  
To: intrigeri, jvoisin
CC: mat-dev
Vecchi argomenti: Re: [mat-dev] [Tails-dev] What is the status and license of MAT?
Oggetto: Re: [mat-dev] [Tails-dev] What is the status and license of MAT?, Re: [Tails-dev] What is the status and license of MAT?
intrigeri <intrigeri@???> writes:

> Hi Chris,
>
>> Chris Marusich:
>>> I've noticed that this release's LICENSE file contains the text of
>>> version 2 of the GNU GPL. However, it isn't clear if the software is
>>> available under "just the GPLv2", or "the GPLv2 or any later version".
>>> Can you clarify which of these is the intended interpretation?
>
> README.md seems to suggest it's GPL v2 only. That's how I've
> interpreted it for the Debian packaging.
>
>>> For this
>>> purpose, it would be helpful if the MAT source files contained the GPL
>>> header explicitly, as suggested in the section titled "How to Apply
>>> These Terms to Your New Programs" in LICENSE file.
>
> It seems to me that README.md does exactly that.


jvoisin <julien.voisin@???> writes:

> Hello Chris,
>
>>> Chris Marusich:
>>>> I've noticed that this release's LICENSE file contains the text of
>>>> version 2 of the GNU GPL. However, it isn't clear if the software
>>>> is available under "just the GPLv2", or "the GPLv2 or any later
>>>> version". Can you clarify which of these is the intended
>>>> interpretation?
>>
>> README.md seems to suggest it's GPL v2 only. That's how I've
>> interpreted it for the Debian packaging.
>
> This is how it's meant to be interpreted. I can always change the
> wording if it's bothering you.


Oh! You're both right. I missed this somehow. I'll package it as
GPLv2, then. I still think it's worth putting the GPL header in each
file, also, as suggested in the GPL text. However, I think this is good
enough to un-block my work. Thank you for pointing it out!

>>> Do you
>>> still believe that users should avoid using it, and if so, why?
>
> Personally, I think that users who need it should use it as AFAIK
> there's nothing better around there anyway.


That's basically what I was thinking, too. Unless it has known
showstopper bugs (e.g., fails to remove metadata when it says it does
remove metadata), it seems better than nothing!

> Thank you for your interest in packaging MAT ♥


Thank you for maintaining it! I look forward to packaging MAT2, also.
:-)

--
Chris