I've got four licensing questions after reviewing all my packages:
1. perl-Newt: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself."
- it is correct to simply list "License: GPL or Artistic", when this is
the only licensing information given?
2. mod_auth_mysql: inaccurate copyright attribution. This package
carries ASL 1.1 copyright notices verbatim, including the "Copyright (c)
1995 The Apache Group.", when no copyright assignment to the "Apache
Group" has ever taken place. Does that matter?
3. mod_authz_ldap: a convoluted one this; the source files contain the
** Read the files README and mod_authz_ldap.html for instructions on
** configuring the module. Details of the license can be found in the
** HTML documentation.
** (c) 2000 Dr. Andreas Mueller
...the HTML docs contain the text:
This module is distributed under the terms of the Apache License,
please check the LICENSE file in your apache distribution or the COPYING
file of the mod_authz_ldap distribution for the exact terms of the
license. In particular, the following disclaimer applies:
[standard Apache-style warranty disclaimer block]
...and the COPYING file contains the GPLv2 (!). Any guesses on how to
4. subversion: source files all reference following URL with
GPLv2+-style "or later version" qualifier:
which is ASL 1.1 with the names changed, and clauses 4 and 5 are changed
in the nature of what exactly they restrict. I don't think it's
appropriate to simply list this as "ASL 1.1"?