Hi Werner, On Tuesday 11 December 2007 22:46, JackTheDipper wrote: > Oh, it's already planned to change gnomecc's license to GPLv3 with the > next major release. ;-) Ok :) > The checksums of the sf.net archive and the orig.tar.gz do match, please > redownload _both_ if you want to compare them. > (I uploaded a new archive to sf.net as its content was the same anyway) Uh. You should never reupload / publish the same version of a software with different contents. If you change _anything_, increase the version number. Actually I was thinking the same about your debian packaging, but as I have't really looked into the package yet, I didn't care at that moment. In future, please increase the debian revision whenever you publish your package (even on mentors) again, so that sponsors can look at the diff with debdiff easily. I'm currently offline, so I cannot look at your latest changes at the moment anyway. (That's also why I dont bother to explain why you shouldn't upload the same version twice. Wikipedia and probably Debian policy have information about why.) Some more notes (based on gnome-color-chooser_0.2.3-1.dsc with the md5sum 221f12775a27735ee5f03ba6c3a981d6 - a wonderful example why releasing a new version without incrementing the version number is bad... :) ./src/gnome-color-chooser.1 says the licence is GPL, which means GPL3, while debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... please fix. ./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok, but I doubt it. Either you need to state the different licences in debian/copyright or use the same licence (but as they are copyrighted by the FSF and others you cant just change the licence OTOH i've also seen this files with other licences...). ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)... ./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says it's based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the result under the GPL(2+).) ./src/combobox.h has the same issue as combobox.cc ./NEWS is useless since it's empty. Please either fill it with useful content or remove it from the Debian package. And, "btw" this feels strange when reading it: # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved. In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to give unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-) ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced and not just refer to the software licence. ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic: # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package. # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gnu.ai.mit.edu> # # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality. # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available. 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is not approriate for legalize. 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main. On a unrelated (to sponsoring this software) note, I want to remark that I dislike how launchpad appearantly (makes software authors) deal(s) with translations: the .po files do not contain any info about the person who did the translation, they list you as the last translator (which I doubt is just not true, but if you speak so many languages, wow!) and some launchpad checkout data. The Language-Team pseudo headers list some mailling lists as contact though. Please dont get frustrated with this legalize strictness :-) Solving this now saves us from the frustration of a upload to NEW and an instant rejection by the ftpmasters - licences and debian/copyright is the first they check, as it's the easiest to spot mistakes. regards, Holger P.S.: Are you subscribed to debian-mentors@l.d.o or should I keep bcc:ing you? (I'm subscribed, please don't cc: me.)
Attachment:
pgpAKTewozN58.pgp
Description: PGP signature