Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] octave-video_1.0.2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 11781 March 1977, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>> rejected, I disagree with your debian/copyright. It lists "License:
>> other" and then the MIT/X11 style one. And totally misses that 99% is
>> actually BSD, and only one file has the one you mention. Please adjust.
> Thanks for the heads up, I have completely overseen that.
> Do you think that the copyright file as attached below would be
> appropriate?
It does look good, but i cant look at the source right now. And a final
answer will only be given when the package is in NEW again and I press
"A"ccept (or Reject :) ).
> Note that source files avctest.cc and Makefile.in are lacking
> copyright notices and licensing terms. Do you think I can assume they
> are released under the BSD terms, as stated in the
> ${topdir}/DESCRIPTION file (also attached below)?
Yes, unless there is reason to doubt it we assume default license/author
of the package. Otherwise nearly no package could ever be accepted.
--
bye, Joerg
<lenny> schneidet nie chilis und wascht euch dann _nicht_ die hände und reibt euch dann an der nase.
<lenny> uargs, wie das brennt
<lenny> hammer. das ist ja schlimmer als die dinger zu essen...
Reply to: