Hi Arto, Arto Jantunen, on 2026-03-07: > Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]> writes: >> Hello Arto, […] >>> These aren't real packages, there is no source code. As far as I >>> understand these test fixtures have been written by the same author and >>> are a part of the this package and if any copyright license applies to >>> them (I'm not a lawyer but if I was and you'd pay me a couple of >>> thousand dollars I'd tell you that they aren't copyrightable) it's the >>> same one that applies to the rest of it (GPLv3+). >> >> It is the task of the upstream author to define the preferred license. > > Very much agreed, and that exactly is why I'm asking these followup > questions instead of just making the requested change to the copyright > file. > > The upstream author has defined the preferred license as GPLv3+, even > though the file content includes the strings "license" and "ISC", which > the tool interprets as having a meaning that it does not have (it is not > the license of the file, it is the license of the typescript package > being described, which does not exist and isn't meant to exist as the > file is a test fixture of an application licensed under the GPL).
If that helps, I have found very useful to record similar nontrivial considerations into the Comment field of the d/copyright file, first to indicate that they were acknowledge, and second to remind what was the rationale behind the decision to introduce the mismatch. It has been useful for me, to ascertain the intent upstream, and it has been useful for d/copyright reviewers, to quickly identify that the apparent issue is actually not a problem. In hope this helps, Have a nice day, :) -- .''`. Étienne Mollier <[email protected]> : :' : pgp: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from /dev/pts/3, please excuse my verbosity `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
