Your message dated Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:16:17 +0800 with message-id <bc9ddd0cc38e714e28e2194eb44ded54b2ebabb3.camel@gmail.com> and subject line Re: Bug#970306: unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright is a false positive when "+" is involved has caused the Debian Bug report #970306, regarding unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright is a false positive when "+" is involved to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 970306: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=970306 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright is a false positive when "+" is involved
- From: Julien Puydt <julien.puydt@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:01:02 +0200
- Message-id: <67b702d9e70190193b9832d03e06ed737481942f.camel@gmail.com>
Package: lintian Version: 2.14.0 Severity: minor I get many unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright I:-type messages from lintian, because the paragraphs in question are License: foo and used as License: foo+. Lintian should see that it's compatible and accept it. I hope that helps, JP
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 970306-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#970306: unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright is a false positive when "+" is involved
- From: Maytham Alsudany <maytha8thedev@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:16:17 +0800
- Message-id: <bc9ddd0cc38e714e28e2194eb44ded54b2ebabb3.camel@gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <CP2PR80MB4628C8C9782A6D9A36D8AB44A83E0@CP2PR80MB4628.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com>
- References: <67b702d9e70190193b9832d03e06ed737481942f.camel@gmail.com> <CAFHYt55EyOWZCPqQsRQUkv7ft5pv-eqaiyhjXr=J=n3wHrzMwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CP2PR80MB4628FD4B18DE894EE0E6317DA83E0@CP2PR80MB4628.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <CAFHYt55gfa=DdAm11ei54OpKt0-wJte0t_zaFayMWRcznLbAmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CP2PR80MB4628C8C9782A6D9A36D8AB44A83E0@CP2PR80MB4628.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com>
> And I've been told that is acceptable to use only one license paragraph with > the GPL-3+ text but with GPL-3 or GPL-3+ in the License field like below to > indicate both licenses. > > License: GPL-3 or GPL-3+ > [LICENSE TEXT] > > And that is where the lintian gives me the errors below. > > W: paper-icon-theme source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl-3 (line 64) > W: paper-icon-theme source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl-3+ (line 58) > I: paper-icon-theme source: unused-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl-3 or gpl-3+ (line 896) > > It may be a non-standard use of the license paragraph too. Not sure, but the > package passed by the FTP master team scrutiny a few days ago. If you would > like to see the copyright file, it's available at [1]. Since GPL-3 and GPL-3+ are "separate" licenses, they should use their own paragraphs. > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/paper-icon-theme -- Maytham Alsudany Debian MaintainerAttachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---