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

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Sun 23 Feb 2020 at 12:39PM +11, Stuart Prescott wrote:

> 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.

I do see what you're getting at, but I'm inclined still to think that it
should be removed.

On the one hand, *maybe* the Debian maintainer's word, as recorded in
d/copyright, is less good evidence than a PDF file included in the
tarball.

On the other hand, it's crystal clear in DFSG that we don't want to
include files which don't have their preferred forms for modification.

It seems to me that the latter wins if either of them do.

> 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.

How about replacing the PDF with a plain text LICENSE file during the
repack?

-- 
Sean Whitton
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debichem-devel/attachments/20200222/13d52a41/attachment.sig>