[Pkg-rust-maintainers] rust-compiler-builtins_0.1.19-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Ximin Luo (2020-01-04 23:01:15)
> This crate has a muddy licensing situation, indicated by these two 
> bugs:
> 
> 1. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/issues/307
> 2. https://github.com/rust-lang/libm/issues/215
> 
> I have replied to both of those bug reports with what I believe is the 
> correct and up-to-date situation.
> 
> The basic point for Debian is that original works copyright holders, 
> do *not* in general [*] automatically hold copyright in the derivative 
> work. So we don't need to mention them in the Copyright: field. This 
> is the case even though they might appear in notices that *look like 
> copyright notices*, but are actually just informational references 
> about the original work of a derivative.

I notice that you reference Github for licensing information.

I recommend to document all such licensing notes in Comment fields in 
debian/copyright, including URIs to further proof like the Github issues 
you reference here aboce.

Collecting copyright interpretation notes within the package not only 
(possibly) eases ftp review, but mat also hel others than ftpmasters 
appreciating all that nice research you have invested here.

If Comment fields are already used, then I simply suggest to reference 
those when arguing your case towards ftpmasters.


kind regards,

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-rust-maintainers/attachments/20200104/c6c63960/attachment.sig>