[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1092829: RFS: geiser/0.31.1-1 [ITA] -- Generic Emacs/Scheme interaction mode



On Monday, January 20, 2025 10:17:33 PM MST Xiyue Deng wrote:

> Hi Phil,

>

> Once again I'm missing your mail and am not able to provide a timely

> reply (sad).  Anyway, please see my replies below.

>

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 06:47:08 +0000 Phil Wyett <philip.wyett@kathenas.org> wrote:

> > Control: tags -1 +moreinfo

> >

> > Xiyue,

> >

> > Preamble...

> >

> > Thank you for taking the time to prepare this package and your contribution

> > to the Debian project.

> >

> > This review is offered to help package submitters to Debian mentors inorder

> > to improve their packages prior to possible sponsorship into Debian. There

> > is no obligation on behalf of the submitter to make any alterations based

> > upon information provided in the review.

> >

> > Review...

> >

> > 1. Build:

> >   * pbuilder [1]: Good

> >   * sbuild [2]: Good

> >

> > 2. Lintian [3]: Good

> >

> > 3. Licenses [4]: Issue

> >

> > philwyett@ks-tarkin:~/Development/builder/debian/geiser-0.31.1$ lrc

> > en: Versions: recon 3.3  check 3.3.9-1

> >

> > Parsing Source Tree  ....

> > Reading d/copyright  ....

> > Running licensecheck ....

> >

> > d/copyright      | licensecheck

> >

> > GFDL-1.3         | GFDL-1.3+         doc/geiser.texi

>

> This should be fine, as the package is using GFDL-1.3 with "no Invariant

> Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts."[1], which is

> DFSG compliant (see "Exceptions" on the DFSGLicense Wiki[2]).


1.  You should list this license as GFDL-NIV-1.3, with NIV standing for No Invariant Sections.  For example, see:


https://salsa.debian.org/soren/privacybrowser/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads#L17


2.  I think the actual question being raised is if this GFDL-NIV-1.3 or GFDL-NIV-1.3+.


--

Soren Stoutner

soren@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: