apertium-cat-ita_0.2.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Thorsten Alteholz]

Hi Kartik,

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Kartik Mistry wrote:
> What should we do next here?

please add the explanation of Tino as comment to your debian/copyright. 
When you do this for the other apertium packages that appear in NEW as 
well, those package could be processed in a timely manner.

   Thorsten


>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 12:56 AM Tino Didriksen <tino at didriksen.cc> wrote:
>> I can answer that...
>>
>> The official stance of the Apertium project is that when one of our repositories don't clarify the license beyond putting the GPL COPYING file in the repo, then it should be interpreted as the "or any later" version of it to maximize reusability.
>>
>> The data is often mixed with GPLv3 data at compile time, often by the same authors, but where the GPLv2 stuff just predates wider GPLv3 adoption.
>>
>> E.g., see email https://www.mail-archive.com/apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06931.html by Francis Tyers for reference. Both Francis Tyers and myself are on the Apertium Project Management Committee ( http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/PMC ).
>>
>> -- Tino Didriksen
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 20:00, Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Kartik,
>>>
>>> COPYING says that the license is GPL-2 only.
>>> Please add a note in your debian/copyright why it should be GPL-2+.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>  Thorsten
>
> -- 
> Kartik Mistry | કાર્તિક મિસ્ત્રી
> kartikm.wordpress.com
>