[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED [and 2 more messages]

Andreas Tille writes ("Re: liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED [and 2 more messages]"):
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 03:33:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 7 (lack of authorship and copright info in .deb for a file contained
> > in the .deb) is a release-critical bug and a proper reason for the
> > package to be REJECTED.
> We usually have *lots* of files (all results of a build process) which
> do not have any explicite copyright info inside the .deb.  In how far
> is this jquery.js different than any other build result.

Do we _usually_ have files in .debs which are *derived from* (not just
generated by) files from other packages, whose authorship is not
represented in the resulting .deb ?

(I think it is fair to disregard things like libgcc, whose authors
have explicitly disclaimed the requirement to notify recipients of
executables about the inclusion of libgcc.)

See also my response to Helmut.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: