On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:58:51PM +0200, kabi wrote: > > On 8/25/05, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Package: avifile > > > Version: 1:0.7.43.20050224-1 > > > Priority: serious
> > I really don't see any reason for this priority anyway > What are you talking about? This is a serious policy violation. > > > - ffmpeg is: Copyright (c) 2000-2004 Fabrice Bellard et al. > > > - ffmpeg/libavcodec/ppc/dsputil_altivec.c says > > This is clearly nonsence - the whole ffmpeg project > > has LGPL licence except for the the postprocess library > > which is GPL. > License != copyright. In your debian/copyright file you have to > state the copyright statements of all files in the sources _and_ the > license they use. If all the files use the same license, fine, just > say it once, but you have to reproduce the copyright statements! > Please re-read the policy, you are obligued to do so and not doing it > is both a de-merit to the original authors (which do not get credited > in /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright) and a policy violation. > > So unless you will find a better reason for pushing me to such sensless > > work I'm not going to fix it this way. > You are going to. License != copyright. If you disagree, bring this > to either debian-devel, debian-legal or the Technical comitte. If you > close this bug stating that you've done the job I will reopen it again. > You have been warned. > If you want to take a loot at a proper debian/copyright files > that acknowledges _all_ the copyrights of its > sources check out /usr/share/doc/xserver-common/copyright or > /usr/share/doc/dpkg/copyright. Notice, in those files, how there is > a first section describing the copyright of the source code and a > second part describing the license. Your copyright file does _not_ > mention the copyright and confuses copyright and license. FWIW, I have a hard time standing behind a total copyright audit as a release-critical requirement. The xfree86 and dpkg packages are definitely good examples of how things should be done, but I think they are also somewhat exceptional; most packages (and indeed, most upstreams) don't actually seem to include comprehensive copyright statements listing all the people who have contributed code, so if we're going to start requiring that the copyright file for every package explicitly lists the name of *every* contributor, as opposed to just the principal copyright holders, we are going to have a very long release cycle or a very small release, or both. When it's pointed out that specific copyright notices are missing from a package copyright file, yes, those should be addressed; as is the case here. It is definitely not sufficient to list the license in /u/s/d/<package>/copyright: you must list the copyright holders as well, and this is definitely a RC bug for that reason. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
