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

Re: Comments regarding relint-el_1.13-1_amd64.changes

Hi Thorsten, Mattias and all,

Сб 04 апр 2020 @ 18:29 Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:

> our hardworking trainees added a note to this package:
>  The copyright stated in source files does not appear to be what the author
>  intended. Please contact the upstream author and ask them if this is their
>  source or if it was derived from FSF.
>  If Mattias wrote this source (I suspect this is the case), then he is the
>  correct copyright holder.
> Can you please clarify this?

hmmm, I'm a bit lost with such a comment.

1. The pacakge relint is included into GNU ELPA
(https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/relint.html), one of the requirements for
packages to be included to GNU ELPA is transfering copyright to FSF.
See, https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/plain/README:

  The Copyright notice should specify "Free Software Foundation, Inc."
  as the copyright holder. Ensure that all the code has the proper
  copyright: if it is not your own code, make sure the author has signed
  the relevant copyright papers (for non-trivial contributions), and
  indicate the author correctly in the commit.

2. The homepage as specified at package's GNU ELPA page is
https://github.com/mattiase/relint. This is where Mattias develop this
package before uploading it to GNU ELPA repository,
Files in GNU ELPA and in GitHub repository are the same, and they state
that the copyright holder is FSF.

3. Mattias Engdegård is an author of another Emacs package, xr, already
included into the Debian archive (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/xr-el).
This package is also included into GNU ELPA and copyright holder is FSF,
not Mattias Engdegård, as required by GNU ELPA policy.

Well, you like I CC this message to Mattias Engdegård. Mattias, could
you be so kind to clarify thi copyright holder issue? Personally, I
guess it is obvious that the copyright holder as stated by me in
d/copyright to be FSF is correct.


Reply to: