[Debichem-devel] dl-poly-classic_1.10+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Stuart Prescott]

Hi folks,

Thanks for the review of dl-poly-classic.

> |   REJECT reasoning   |
> No source code for LICENCE.pdf.  Please filter out of the orig.tar.

If no licence text were included in a source tarball, would not an ftp-master 
review ask for evidence that the package is freely distributable? LICENCE.pdf 
is the only file that gives Debian permission to redistribute the source code. 
While a PDF is not our normal way of including such information, it seems 
quite wrong to not include it.

If someone were to download the dl-poly-classic_1.10+dfsg.orig.tar.gz from the 
archive, they would not find the licence, copyright and attribution information 
anywhere in the tarball, contrary to point 1 of the licence text.

It's trivial to add LICENCE.pdf to Files-Excluded and reupload; this isn't 
about avoiding work. I'm asking because removing LICENCE.pdf from the tarball 
seems quite wrong.

Do you *really* want it to be removed?

cheers
Stuart

-- 
Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart at nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart at debian.org
GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7