[Debichem-devel] dl-poly-classic_1.10+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Stuart Prescott
stuart at debian.org
Sun Feb 23 01:39:55 GMT 2020
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
More information about the Debichem-devel
mailing list