The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> writes: > On 2021-03-10 at 01:30, Arto Jantunen wrote: > >> Indeed the package was rejected after two months in the queue, due to >> things missing from the copyright file: >> >>> +----------------------+ >>> | REJECT reasoning | >>> +----------------------+ >>> >>> examples/completion seems to be copyright Etienne PIERRE and there does not >>> seem to be reason that they too have relinquished copyright. >>> >>> moosic/server/xmlrpc_registry.py has a different license. >>> >>> +----------------------+ >>> | N.B. | >>> +----------------------+ >>> >>> This review may not be exhaustive. Please check your source package >>> against your d/copyright and the ftpmaster REJECT-FAQ, throughly, >>> before uploading to NEW again. > > Neither of these things is new; they were true of the last version prior > to the removal, and possibly of some versions prior to that as well. > That makes this a bit aggravating. > > Still, I suppose that just means they slipped through the cracks of the > less-stringent copyright review that's applied to packages already in > the archive, rather than that they shouldn't need to be addressed...
There is no systematic copyright review happening for packages that are already in the archive (unless they add new binary packages and end up in the NEW queue that way). I'm personally not a fan of how this currently works in Debian, but "so there has ever been and ever will be". >> I'll try to find the time to go through the source and update this, >> unless you beat me to it of course. :) > > For moosic/server/xmlrpc_registry.py, I think we just need to document > the license in debian/copyright. I don't have a local copy of the > debian/ directory for this, and have no experience with updating such, > so although I'd kind of like to *get* that experience I think it'd > probably be best if you cover that part. Sure, I'll handle that. > For examples/completion, it's not clear whether or not documenting the > copyright statement would be enough. No specific license is stated for > that file, so it's not clear what license Etienne PIERRE (whom I infer > to be its original author, prior to later changes introduced by Daniel > Pearson) would have intended for it. The completion script was actually provided through Debian initially and then later included upstream: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=184633 This initial submission includes a copyright statement, but no license. Not asking for one was clearly my mistake. We might as well just remove it for now, we can easily bring it back if we can come up with a plausible story about the licensing situation. -- Arto Jantunen
