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 packages/babel-preset-es2015/test/fixtures/traceur/LICENSE 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 FIXME 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.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature