On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst <deb...@jff-webhosting.net> wrote: > Hello Vincent, > > many thanks for your preview on sunday. > > > Am Samstag, den 10.05.2014, 22:58 -0700 schrieb Vincent Cheng: >> Control: tag -1 + moreinfo >> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst >> <deb...@jff-webhosting.net> wrote: >> > Package: sponsorship-requests >> > Severity: normal >> > > [...] >> > >> > dget -x >> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/foomatic-filters/foomatic-filters_4.0.17-3.dsc >> > >> >> Please take a second look at debian/copyright. >> >> Upstream-Name: downtimed >> Upstream-Contact: Janne Snabb <opensou...@epipe.com> >> >> This is obviously incorrect for foomatic-filters (presumably you were >> preparing an upload for downtimed and just copied + pasted these >> headers). >> > Done. It was my script in test mode. Sorry > >> The various files in test/ are not GPL licensed, as you claim in >> debian/copyright. Also, your GPL-2.0+ license block has a reference to >> GPL 3, and I have no idea where the last paragraph in your GPL license >> block comes from; that's definitely not standard for GPL. >> > For test/tcm.sh and test/tetapi.sh I have copy the license from the > source.
test/{tcm,tetapi}.sh look like they're licensed under the MIT license + the non-endorsement clause typically included in 3-clause BSD licenses. It's fair to define "License: MIT" in d/copyright with the full license block included, but please don't use "Part-1" and "Part-2" as license names as you currently do. > Therefor I have a question: In the last Revison all files are tagged as > GPL-2. I think that "except as stated in the end-user licence agreement" > are pointed to the root-license. Or do I interpret this wrong? That's fine. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org