On Mon, 2026-10-12 at 21:29 +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > Hello, > > thanks for the review. > > > debian/copyright Files: * (lines 13–17) mislabels every file that > > upstream declares CC0-1.0 as GPL-2.0-or-later. > > I'm not sure I follow. The files say that they have the same license > as "the project", and every single source file has GPL-2.0-or-later.
If you read 'REUSE.toml' you will see a variety of SPDX specifications about different files that are licensed as CC0-1.0 (and some as GPL- 2.0-or-later as well). So the file REUSE.toml is an upstream file which describes the licensing terms of "the project", and what it says should be reflected in debian/copright. Hope that helps, Andrew McMillan > > I didn't really find any indication of what "the project" uses, but > since all of the source files use that license, I went with that > one. > > I don't think that some extremely trivial and minor artwork should be > deciding the overall license. > > I can try to fix the other issues. > > Best -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Porirua, New Zealand +64 (27) 288 6741 https://andrew.mcmillan.net.nz We should all be glad that Richard Reid wasn't the 'underwear bomber' - - Bruce Schneier ----------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
