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

Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] fontforge_20160404~dfsg-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:

> Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2016-07-21 16:19:18)
>> Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> writes:
>>> can you please take care of all those lintian warnings like:
>>>  W: fontforge source: file-without-copyright-information ...
>> There is no copyright on those files. So I've asked upstream to 
>> clarify here ¹ and a related pull request is here ².
>> Earlier we asked upstream about the copyright related issue ³ and Dave 
>> Crossland from upstream mentioned that copyright for these files can 
>> be collectively referenced as "The Fontforge Authors", I could have 
>> added a wild card catch all with this information but that does not 
>> feel right because its job of author to assign copyright and not of 
>> the packager.
>> So in short the issue is already notified to upstream and all these 
>> files are collectively licensed as GPL-3 and copyrighted collectively 
>> as "The Fontforge Authors".
> What Thorsten/ftp-masters request is to "take care of lintian warnings", 
> not specifically that those files be treated as copyright-protected.

Aye understood. Thanks for clarification.

> Those lintian warnings are (roughly) that files distributed doesn't 
> match files covered in debian/copyright.
> One way to "take care of it" is to override lintian.
> Another (better, IMO) approach is to list the files in debian/copyright 
> - i.e. add one or more sections covering group(s) of files without 
> copyright and licensing, with comments on why it is deemed legally ok 
> for us to distribute anyway.

I think I will go with second approach and list down the files without
copyright information. Regarding Licensing can't we assign collective
license here?..

>> Do the FTP Master still thinks its not correct to upload this package 
>> till all copyrights are in place?.. (I'm not sure when that will 
>> happen either).
> I believe in any case when a package is rejected it needs re-uploading.
> Instead of waiting for a response for ftpmaster (which in my experience 
> can potentially take a while) I suggest simply go ahead and address 
> their request as I interpret it above, and (if ftpmaster hasn't replied 
> by then, instructing differently) simply upload that and see if they 
> approve it.

Thanks. I will start working on this and upload as soon as its finished.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: