Reviews for freebasic
All reviews for this package from team members (across all versions).
| Reviewer | Version | Allocated | Started | Status | Completed | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mechtilde | 1.10.1+ds-1 | 2 months, 25 days ago | 2 months, 25 days ago | rejected | 2 months, 25 days ago | Hello Ahmad, It is difficult to review this package. It will be easier if you create the d/copyright file using the ‘scan-copyrights’ command. This ensures that all data is listed with its correct authors and licenses. After a new upload, the package can be released. | View |
| awm | 1.10.1+ds-1 | 17 days ago | 17 days ago | rejected | 17 days ago | Hi! There are a lot of issues that will need to be resolved before this can be accepted into Debian. 1. Authors missing credit (see Missing Author Check note). This is an old an crufty package, and it may be that these authors are credited in some less obvious way, but it will be helpful if they can be listed in debian/copyright since that is where people look in a Debian package. 2. License Reconciliation The output of `lrc` has many variations with the licenses as depicted in debian/copyright. While we can handle smaller sets of variation this just seems extreme and needs a thorough review. 3. Strange and unclear licenses One license is named as 'public-domain-sqlite3' which contains a vague disclaiming of copyright along with a blessing. That's *nothing* like the rigor of the actual public domain dedication of SQLite itself. I would recommend dropping this entirely in favour of the GPL-2+ which that code is seemingly also licensed under. The GFDL needs to be identified as to whether the covered work includes invariant sections (normally it does not, and so is DFSG-compatible). So obviously something in all of this needs fixing, and I am rejecting this upload on that basis. I expect this will take a bit of time to work through these issues, and I'll try and turn around further reviews on a reasonable time scale to assist. Thanks! | View |