El Divendres, 11 de juliol de 2014, a les 13:00:05, Thorsten Alteholz va escriure: > Dear Maintainer, > > unfortunately I have to reject your package. > > According to your debian/copyright alle files under octovis/* are GPLv2. > However I found files under GPLv2+, GPLv2 or GPLv3 and the icons are > even LGPLv3 > Please add those licenses and their copyright holder to debian/copyright > as well. > > Thanks! > Thorsten > > === > > Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why > your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our > concerns.
Dear ftp-master, first of all, thanks for your time. I'm sorry for this mistake. I didn't pay sufficient attention to the license. I'm newbie and I trust too much in the upstream descriptions. Just a few comments: - I have not found any license file with GPLv2+ in upstream sources. Please, could you tell me which one? - Yes, I didn't realize about the icons directory. I will try to find the copyright holder (they mention a webpage that doesn't exist) and complete the copyright file. - Upstream include a copy of the lib QGLViewer. I didn't use it because we have a package and we use it in octomap. Probably it's better to mention its own license in the copyright file. Or, what's is your recommendation? Andreas, I will try to solve all this issues soon, please could you upload it again when it will be done? Regards, Leopold -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA Catalonia ------------------------------------- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- debian-science-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
