On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:07:29AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > This is also what I rant about. They do not know and asked, that is good. I > spent the time to provide detailed answers and they are ignored, that's bad. > Before the rejection there was no issue about the .Rdata files, and now they > are in the limbo because of the archive team's silence, since they are > ruling what is acceptable and what is not.
This seems to suggest that the ftp team was in the process of evaluating whether tabular data formats *can* be acceptable. I don't see that this was the case here at all; I only see that, as of Joerg's last question to the bug, it was not clear to him that the specific data files in this case met the criteria that were already being used. I draw the distinction here because reading your message made me worry that the ftp team were moving the line for archive acceptance without discussion, when reading the bug log shows that they're simply trying to determine on which side of the existing line these files fall. I would suggest that you add documentation to the source package in debian/copyright explaining either why these files constitute the "preferred form for modification" under the GPL, or why the files are not covered by the GPL (since the reject message seems to imply that GPLv2 was the only license you listed in debian/copyright), and reupload to the NEW queue once this and the other listed reject reasons are resolved. (Omitting, please, the digression that these files "are usually not modified", since this is irrelevant to the DFSG and to the GPL.) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
