Hi, On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 02:16:23PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: <snip> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 05:47:59PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > > I've taken a look at this package as found at > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/publicfile/-/tree/debian/0.52-13?ref_type=tags > > and wanted to share my thoughts on it with you: > > <snip> > > > In debian/copyright, I see a statement to debian/patches/errno.patch > > that attributes the copyright to [email protected]. I see two issues with that: > > a) you cannot assign a copyright to an email address. It needs to be a > > person or similar b) the comment below then claims that this patch > > wasn't subject to copyright law. That's a bold statement and unlikely to > > be true given how many jurisdictions we have on this planet. > > > > Please ask the original author(s) of the patch about the licensing > > terms, and suggest public domain. Do copy their response in > > debian/copyright as appropriate. > > The patch contains of 3 lines of code, of which 2 are the same. I believe one > could make a good point argueing the patch is so small it isn't copyrightable? > That's what I was trying to do in d/copyright. With > > Copyright: 2002 [email protected] > > I was trying to express the contact info for the patch is [email protected], and it > was > published in 2002.
> > I would recommend to REJECT this package until the licencing terms of > > the patches are clarified. > > Actually, the situation with debian/patches/filetype.patch is tricky. > I am considering contacting the author of that one (with me luck...) > See d/copyright and d/changelog for details. <snip> For the record: In private Message-ID: <[email protected]> I've just asked upstream of that patch for license clarification: Jan 2 14:18:49 beskar postfix/smtp[8022]: 7300221096: to=<[email protected]>, relay=xmtp.o.d[213.XXX.XXX.137]:25, delay=11, delays=0.02/0.01/9.4/1.9, dsn=2.5.0, status=sent (250 2.5.0 OK (1A3A36957C5B8026A6)) . I'll wait for a while... Bye, Joost
