Follow-up Comment #7, task #15759 (project administration): Thank you!
> I disagree; a mere directory of personal identifiers > with an objective inclusion criteria is not copyrightable That may be evident for you, the maintainer of the package, that it's just a directory of personal identifiers and that their criteria of inclusion are objective, but other people may not see this so clear. data.dist/README says, To the extent that they are copyrightable, the following notice applies to the files in this directory: The main point of adding the notices to every file is making it easier for other people to re-use them in other software packages, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LicenseCopyOnly If the files are not listed explicitly, it's very easy to get wrong when copying this to other package or even adding new files to this directory. While at it, data.dist/README and other files refer to the CC BY license, but no copy of the license can be easily found in the tarball. Please make sure that other files have valid copyright and license notices as well, for example, etc.dist/messages/charter lacks them, local/README has no valid copyright notice, local/bin/pmcheck has no license notice, and the copyright notice is ambiguous and doesn't follow the convention. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15759> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
