On 6/10/21 11:48 AM, VIVEK K J wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for pointing the issue. They've using WTFPL license in the > gemspec file. But in their source code (i.e. GitHub Repository) they are > using license text of expat[1] and they updated their gemspec file to use MIT > expat license[2] in master branch. That's why I gave the license as expat. Can you make it "WTFPL and Expat" then? and add a Comment saying Expat is mentioned in the upstream git repo. > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On Tuesday, October 5th, 2021 at 11:30 PM, Thorsten Alteholz > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> according to uc.micro-rb.gemspec the license is WTFPL. Where did you get the >> information about the Expat license? >> >> 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. > > [1] - https://github.com/digitalmoksha/uc.micro-rb/blob/v1.0.5/LICENSE > [2] - > https://github.com/digitalmoksha/uc.micro-rb/blob/master/uc.micro-rb.gemspec#L11 > > > Thanks, > > Vivek K J
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
