-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "complexity": * Package name : complexity Version : 1.13-1 Upstream Author : Bruce Korb <bk...@gnu.org> * URL : https://gnu.org/software/complexity * License : FSFAP, GPL-3+, GFDL-1.3+ * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/complexity Section : devel It builds those binary packages: complexity-doc - tool for analyzing the complexity of C program (documentation) complexity - tool for analyzing the complexity of C program functions To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/complexity/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/complexity/complexity_1.13-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Update to latest upstream version 1.13 * Upstream 1.13 added explicit license to the offending file that mandated source repackaging in all previous versions which is now DFSG compatible * Remove gnulib generated stuff during build since there is no repackaging * Update standards to 4.6.0, no changes * Bump debhelper-compat to 13, no changes * Update watch to version 4 * Add upstream metadata * New maintainer (Closes: #959161) The most significant change in this upload is avoiding repackaging. The offending file is a template to generate a web page. The template is not used during the build, thus no web pages are produced, and the template itself is not installed. The produced web page's content would be non-DFSG compliant CC BY-ND 3.0 US. In upstream versions before 1.13, the template itself lacks any licensing information besides the license for the generated content. Assuming the file license from the package license would be ambiguous and thus the repackaging was unavoidable to stay on the safe side. Also all tools like licensecheck would see the file as under the non-DFSG compatible license and complain accordingly. Since upstream release 1.13 there is a separate license statement in the template file explicitly stating that the template file itself is under FSF All Permissive License. The generated content also would be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Since the file is not used during the build, no content is generated from it and neither the template nor any generated content is installed, I believe that it is safe to avoid the repackaging. Regards, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEumC8IPN+WURNbSUAE2VyCRPS8i0FAmFBSEEACgkQE2VyCRPS 8i3f0Q/9FBOLFhWdM4z+UrnpjnTEgcSv4Cq57H/YS3x+PgX8Fid3J8/+ja5ytYRR OKnjDvUL0CjRizgWPLU2qMDknaGRfYiSXiD69PSn62mvn+7plLgkIPKMSbURwDdv onh5ndmvHGIixgmbjwou67ILmkWcy8SMqFs8xJd+QIOSahCignaee2UpM3UHARI+ kvUIh0h9cvE9blsVSq7S4v0PHpuAFuyay0CmXt1yoFrPBGsmZ5ddkSLcpeN4CYs+ es+FQsYqN4BjbeU46FUsIPL54KhVbjRiPBuY0l1qnSOxzooCnEmwL+PFfDAFse/b 0rvhbCPU+Q3KAfr136L5904gP1IpfSyEL0q2MJJ6cKx0gDhWCMHprZED6EsRcGlV Yytwa0JqlKF3Y3dTmaZo3IDaE/in6C4d2T1xEsiPWv+caVnpKPTLx3z5+txtCqOV niuJUcb2hp90iAKbru6GmE2SivkS2j8e/YfomU+nu4fxKCNhXpX40fB8xNmb7N3D ylFbSPC1BNq0UTyS166HCE/LOnBWjrA9L3NmGicxohABvMjroHl1+sDmdoVKTQKX 877tkeYZSvwwu8VbRsZcrq49KzEg6ooLHvrQg/SNXl8BwWgP+izloYDz5sUpG8y9 V8FJdQXtXNMbY8XN5yz7fndDJK8uxDoC+kAlEvXDKBlrUp3S35A= =JJdh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----