On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 02:47:07AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > There are some problematic copyright format 1.0 license statements in > the archive. The most common is "UNKNOWN", sometimes with "FIXME" as the > full license but sometimes completely blank. In one file "UNKNOWN" is > defined as "No information available about the license of this code.", > which I think is pretty problematic. Others say it is unclear or clarify > what "UNKNOWN" means. Here you can find some instances of this: undefined-license Your copyright file references a license that is not defined. Due to copyright law, files that are not available under a defined license are non-free and non-re-distributable. Referencing an undefined license could mean the file cannot be distributed in Debian or it could simply mean that the existing license needs to be documented. In both cases, the copyright file should be updated to reflect reality. Files that cannot be distributed in Debian should be removed from the package. https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part