Hello,
On Mon 11 Apr 2022 at 05:51PM +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> They also pointed out that there is some code from StackOverflow,
>> which is not GPL-3+.
>
> I think this is not right? I think you are referring to
> `argparseactionnoyes.py`. As I documented in the file header, it is
> part of S
Quoting Mike Gabriel (2022-04-11 21:59:12)
> For d/copyright maintenance I use my update-copyright.in script [1]. I
> run it on the source package's base folder.
[...]
> [1]
> https://github.com/sunweaver/MyHomeConfig/blob/master/bin/update-copyright.in
You should no longer need licensecheck2
On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 23:34 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Any idea how we could automate the Reply-To: thingy in a REJECTED
> action, depending on uploader's preference? (not: I'm not
> volunteering, just trowing a piece of idea... :)
Here is an idea I posted on IRC a while back that should wor
On 4/11/22 21:59, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Hi Ian,
On Mo 11 Apr 2022 18:51:35 CEST, Ian Jackson wrote:
Another team member identified that there is code in this package
under a number of different licenses other than GPL-3+, but that is
not specified in sufficient detail in d/copyright. That cont
On 4/11/22 19:04, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Ian Jackson (2022-04-11 18:51:35)
For transparency, I am CCing this reply to debian-devel, and quoting
the whole of the REJECTED mail. There does not seem to be anything in
here that ought to be private. Please let me know if there is
somewhere
Hi Ian,
On Mo 11 Apr 2022 18:51:35 CEST, Ian Jackson wrote:
Another team member identified that there is code in this package
under a number of different licenses other than GPL-3+, but that is
not specified in sufficient detail in d/copyright. That contravenes
both Debian Policy and the term
Quoting Ian Jackson (2022-04-11 18:51:35)
> For transparency, I am CCing this reply to debian-devel, and quoting
> the whole of the REJECTED mail. There does not seem to be anything in
> here that ought to be private. Please let me know if there is
> somewhere better. (I considered -legal but
considered -legal but it didn't seem
appropriate.)
FTAOD, I am not, with this mail, asking -devel for a peer review of my
package's licensing status, nor of the ftpmaster decision; just using
-devel as a catch-all list.
Sean Whitton writes ("secnet_0.6.2_multi.c
8 matches
Mail list logo
