Hi, Seems debian/copyright isn't correct and needs some refinement.
I don't think that openwrt-x86-ext2.image and openwrt-x86-vmlinuz should be in the original sources at all. These are sourceless files, and cannot fit Debian at all. Thomas -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Bug#633600: nova: inadequate copyright file Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:54:02 +0000 Resent-From: Mike O'Connor <s...@vireo.org> Resent-To: debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org Resent-CC: Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:50:39 -0400 From: Mike O'Connor <s...@vireo.org> Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <s...@vireo.org>, 633...@bugs.debian.org To: Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org> Source: nova Version: 2011.2-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 In reviewing this source package, I find several problems with the copyright file: tools/ajaxterm/sarissa* are LGPL, but this is not mentioned in debian/copyright. The rest of ajaxterm is public domain In the smoketests directory, i find: openwrt-x86-ext2.image openwrt-x86-vmlinuz one seems to be a kernel, the other an ext2 image with a kernel and grub. The licenses for these are not mentioned in debian/copyright, and I do not find source for these The license and copyright notice from nova/virt/xenapi/fake.py does not appear contrib/boto_v6 is under a MIT like license that is not mentioned in debian/copyright, nor are its copyright holders bin/nova-manage carries a BSD license which is not mentioned in debian/copyright, nor are its copyright holders bye, stew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
