Hi Thorsten, I agree with you about the missing copyright holders, that needs to be fixed.
But using the: "License: MPL-2.0 and ISC and BSD-2-clause and BSD-3-clause" is a great simplification and it's not that far fetched. Listing every different file in the debian/copyright doesn't serve any useful purpose in my opinion. I won't fight with the FTP masters, but I don't think sieving through the individual files is well spent time. What do you think? Ondrej On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 00:09, Thorsten Alteholz <deb...@alteholz.de> wrote: > Package: bind9 > Version: 1:9.15.5-1 > Severity: serious > User: alteh...@debian.org > Usertags: ftp > thanks > > Hi, > > our hardworking trainees added a note to your package: > > d/copyright mentions that this source is: > License: MPL-2.0 and ISC and BSD-2-clause and BSD-3-clause > However, LICENSE only says MPL-2.0. I see no indication that the majority > of source files are quadruple-licensed. Rather, the majority seem to be > only MPL-2.0. > > The directories lim/isccc/ and m4/ have a number of copyright holders not > that are not mentioned in d/copyright. > > lib/irs/getnameinfo.c also has a copyright holder (WIDE Project) that is > not mentioned in d/copyright. > > > Please take care of these issues. > > Thanks! > Thorsten > >
