Hello, On Sat 11 Apr 2020 at 12:49PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Files: * >> Copyright: The GTK Team and others >> License: LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+ >> Comment: >> Specific authors omitted (unneeded for this license, and list is long). > > My understanding is that the ftp team would consider this to be a bug, > and possibly a RC one, because: > > - the permissive licenses have been omitted (it should say > "LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+ and Expat and (Expat or unlicense) and ..."); Policy says it's an RC bug: "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright." (ยง2.3 and elsewhere). Whether the FTP Team would reject it depends on our judgement as to whether Debian would be violating any license terms by not including it in d/copyright; I can't say without looking at the package. The main factor is usually whether the files ends up in the binary package or not. In general, whether something is an RC bug is not really an FTP Team matter; that's Policy and the Release Team. When we file bugs based on NEW review, severities are chosen based on Policy. That's why we sometimes ACCEPT a package but then file an RC bug. > - not all of the copyright notices that exist in the source code have > been copied into the copyright file I've recently patched Policy to be much more specific and more inline with the FTP Team's consensus on this point. https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy/-/commit/0dc2eefc784d064b6398aa3f5233eb5b81b9e260 (not released yet) -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
