Bug#747192: RFS: foomatic-filters/4.0.17-3 ITA

[Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org>]

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst
<debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote:
> Hello Vincent,
>
> many thanks for your preview on sunday.
>
>
> Am Samstag, den 10.05.2014, 22:58 -0700 schrieb Vincent Cheng:
>> Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
>>
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst
>> <debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote:
>> > Package: sponsorship-requests
>> > Severity: normal
>> >
> [...]
>> >
>> >     dget -x
>> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/foomatic-filters/foomatic-filters_4.0.17-3.dsc
>> >
>>
>> Please take a second look at debian/copyright.
>>
>> Upstream-Name: downtimed
>> Upstream-Contact: Janne Snabb <opensource@epipe.com>
>>
>> This is obviously incorrect for foomatic-filters (presumably you were
>> preparing an upload for downtimed and just copied + pasted these
>> headers).
>>
> Done. It was my script in test mode. Sorry
>
>> The various files in test/ are not GPL licensed, as you claim in
>> debian/copyright. Also, your GPL-2.0+ license block has a reference to
>> GPL 3, and I have no idea where the last paragraph in your GPL license
>> block comes from; that's definitely not standard for GPL.
>>
> For test/tcm.sh and test/tetapi.sh I have copy the license from the
> source.

test/{tcm,tetapi}.sh look like they're licensed under the MIT license
+ the non-endorsement clause typically included in 3-clause BSD
licenses. It's fair to define "License: MIT" in d/copyright with the
full license block included, but please don't use "Part-1" and
"Part-2" as license names as you currently do.

> Therefor I have a question: In the last Revison all files are tagged as
> GPL-2. I think that "except as stated in the end-user licence agreement"
> are pointed to the root-license. Or do I interpret this wrong?

That's fine.

Regards,
Vincent