shutter_0.99.2-1_multi.changes REJECTED

[Andrej Shadura]

Hi,

On Sun, 16 Jan 2022, at 23:22, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2022, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>> My understanding is that since they are in public domain and the project as a whole is GPL-3+, they’re covered by that license.

> no, policy says debian/copyright should contain a verbatim copy of the 
> license information. So, files under GPL-3+ must be mentioned but also 
> files under other licenses and in this case the information about PD. It 
> would be nice to mention the overall license as a comment, but that would 
> be only the icing on the cake.

I see.

>>>   PO translation files have copyright assignments
>>>   ===============================================
>>>
>>>   Not a single one is mentioned in the d/copyright file
>>
>> That’s on its own is not enough for a reject, as I understand.
>
> A missing copyright holder in case of a license that requires to note the 
> copyright holder? Why do you question this as a reason for a reject?

I’m not questioning the fact it is an issue, but I don’t see it as a major one.

>>> Further please remove all files that are licensed under a CC-2.0
>>> license, as it is not compatible with DFSG.
>>
>> Which files? The Tango icons have been relicensed as PD, so they’re covered by the GPL, as per above.

> I didn't note all filenames, but several svg-files had pointder to the 
> CC-2 license embedded.

If so, these are Tango icons, and they have been re-licensed as public domain. In the upstream project, the license pointers have been updated, but the icons themselves have apparently been copied to other projects before the XML tags have been updated; that doesn’t change the license, however.

I will update the copyright file to explicitly state the licenses of these files. I understand "CC-something-2.0 or PD or GPL-3+" should be appropriate given the history of these files.

-- 
Cheers,
  Andrej