qutecom_2.2~rc3.dfsg0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

[Ludovico Cavedon]

Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:59:14AM -0800, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
>> Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>>> I realise that your debian/copyright is already heavy, but the entry for
>>> libpurple is really not sufficient. You might want to take
>>> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/pidgin/pidgin_2.5.3-1/libpurple-dev.copyright
>>> as a template.
>> Do you mean that we should also include all the names listed in
>> libpurple-dev.copyright?
> 
> There are actually two separate issues:
> 
> The first is that some of the files have differing license and copyright
> from the majority. You will need to include this information in your
> copyright file.

Mhm, yes, you are right, I am afraid I overlooked it :(

> The second is the list of the poeple that make up what you called
> the libpurple development team. I would accept that you don't want
> to list them all, but a remaining problem is that the files say:
> " * Purple is the legal property of its developers, whose names are too
> numerous
>  * to list here.  Please refer to the COPYRIGHT file distributed with this
>   * source distribution."
> And the COPYRIGHT file is nowhere to be found. You will need at least
> add this COPYRIGHT file to the source package.

Looks like the best thing would be to include everything in the qutecom
copyright file, according to http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
------
You need to list all  copyright information with all licenses in the
copyright file itself. That one has to be the single point of
information. Only files you find in /usr/share/common-licenses have a
special exception here, everthing else needs to be fully included!
------

I'll also add libpurple's COPYRIGHT file to the source tarball.

Thank you,
Ludovico