On ചൊവ്വ 10 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 2017 02:08 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
> This makes me worry we are still not in sync about what the problem is...
> Ignore this package for now: if I, totally by accident, mispasted a line
> into a debian/copyright file, the solution would be to remove such a line,
> no? Not rework the package so that the attribution became true.

The output of licensecheck command,

licensecheck -l0 --deb-machine -r
Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: FIXME
Upstream-Contact: FIXME
Source: FIXME
Disclaimer: Autogenerated by licensecheck

Files: packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/LICENSE
Copyright: License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
  You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
  [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
  license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
  patent, trademark, and
License: Apache-2.0

Which was not copy pasted as is, I thought about the problem and
modified those lines.

I did try to find the copyright notice from the upstream project but
that solution was not accepted either.  I did not mis-paste it by
accident. I manually added that comment that author name was missing
because it did not look normal to me.

I did not know not marking the presence of a LICENSE file in
debian/copyright was the preferred solution.

Are we not supposed to mark all copyright notices in debian/copyright?
How is Expat license applying to these code better than my original
copyright section which said these code are under Apache-2.0?

I knew there was a problem, it was not a mistake, it was a conscious
choice. The three choices I had was,

1. Add a comment that author name was missing, which was rejected
2. Try to find a the author name from project website, which was not
also considered a solution.
3. I removed that file altogether as it was not used currently, now that
was also not accepted.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to