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

Re: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] haskell-bencode_0.5-3_amd64.changes REJECTED



Hey,

On Tue, Dec 30 2014, Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Am Montag, den 29.12.2014, 22:00 -0600 schrieb Christopher Reichert:
>> I pushed changes to fix this. Can someone please review the new
>> copyright and let me know if it's sufficient?
>
> I added
> Comment: Lemmih and David Himmelstrup are the same persons.
> to avoid repeated confusion about this.
>
>
>> It's not completely clear to me what licensing information is missing
>> and what license is used in the header of those two source files. I put
>> BSD-style as seen in the Haddock header but it's very close to the MIT
>> license.
>
> You need to copy all license and copyright information from everywhere
> in the source file to debian/copyright. So if some files are under a
> different license as the whole package (as it is the case here), you’ll
> have to add additional "Files:" stanzas.
>


Got it. I appreciate the help.


> Also, all copyright must be mentioned.
>  2005 Jesper Louis Andersen <jlouis@mongers.org>
> is missing in debian/copyright.
>
> But this package is really in a bad shape (upstream-wise), with only
> three source files, two of which have a separate license than the whole
> package. Maybe you should contact upstream to clear things up and put
> everything under _one_ license and include all copyright holders
> in .cabal.


I contacted upstream to see if anything can be done about the
licensing. I'll update accordingly if I receive any word.


I *think* the package copyrighting should currently be okay. Maybe I can
write a script which scans the source with some regexp and throws a
warning if something seems off.

Thanks for the help and patience on this one!

Regards,

--
Christopher Reichert
irc: creichert
gpg: C81D 18C8 862A 3618 1376  FFA5 6BFC A992 9955 929B

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: