Re: ocaml-faad_0.1.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Romain Beauxis <toots@rastageeks.org>]

Le Saturday 07 June 2008 18:13:28 Thomas Viehmann, vous avez écrit :
> Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > So, Sam wrote the code, owns the copyright, but the Savonet Team, which
> > Sam is part of is the current upstream author. What's the issue there ?
>
> Well, the code says
>   (c) by Savonet Team
>   Author: Samuel
> the debian/copyright says
>   (c) Samuel
>   Author: Savonet Team
>
> That is not the same and something to get right.
> I'm not in a place to give advice to the upstream you, but I'm not sure
> that some more standardized copyright and licensing statement would be
> undesirable there...

Well, I don't think it's the same namespace.
Author in a source code file, especially when written like:
  * @author Samuel Mimram
Actually means that Samuel wrote the file, hence is the copyright owner. 

But, the overall global author, refered as upstream author truly is "The 
Savonet Team".

Besides, I can't get the code you are refering to. I only have:
  ./src/Makefile.in:# Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Savonet team
  ./src/Makefile.in:# by Samuel Mimram
  ./src/faad.mli:  * @author Samuel Mimram

Yes, the Makefile.in could be confusing, but that's the one we use for every 
projects. Furthermore, not all autoconf related files are listed in 
debian/copyright usually.

And, yes no other license notice expecpt the COPYING file, which is sufficient 
but not recommended.

Anyway, I thank you for the time you take on reviewing my packages.

Romain