[Debian-astro-maintainers] starjava-topcat_4.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Ole Streicher]

Hi Chris,

since I had no idea what I should change, I re-uploaded the unchanged
package in the hope that you could check it again and and give me a hint
which patch(es) you mean? As I wrote, I don't see an unreferenced
copyright there.

Best regards

Ole

On 11.04.2017 10:14, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Am 11.04.2017 um 10:00 schrieb Chris Lamb:
>> It seems there are patches with unreferenced copyright (or patches that change
>> the copyright) under debian/patches. Please clarify the situation of these
>> within debian/copyright. Many thanks :)
> 
> Could you be more specific here? All patches have a well-defined
> copyright. Here is the full list:
> 
> * Remove-unneeded-reference-to-AstPackage.patch
>   Remove-plastic-support.patch
>   Remove-SOG-references.patch
>   Remove-FitsReaderSpi.patch
>   Remove-edu.jhu.htm-reference.patch
>   Fix-build.xml-for-use-outside-of-starjava.patch
>   Use-custom-BrowserLauncher.patch
>   Fix-Icon-path-in-jhall.jar.patch
>   Remove-references-to-xdoc-and-ttools.patch
>   Adjust-classpath-in-topcat-script.patch
>   Use-a-local-copy-of-the-XSLT-stylesheets-instead-of-xdoc.patch
>   Don-t-call-home-for-new-version-by-default.patch
>   Clearly-mark-this-version-as-Debian.patch
>   Remove-GBIN-references.patch
>   Make-CDF-optional.patch
>   Remove-MIRAGE-references.patch
>   Remove-references-to-SRB-and-MySpace.patch
> 
> These files are all generated by me, including the new files. They all
> fall under the main section in d/copyright, which includes my own copyright.
> 
> * Add-XSLT-sheets-for-conversion-of-the-xml-documentation-t.patch
> 
> These files are taken from another subdirectory of the upstream github
> repository; namely xdoc/. As such, they also fall under the original
> copyright in the main section in d/copyright.
> 
> * Add-cds.tools.ExtApp.patch
> 
> This patch was originated by CDS and therefore has its own paragraph in
> d/copyright.
> 
> I can't see a patch with an unclear license, and none of them changes
> the copyright of an existing file. I would also not see that a problem
> -- the sources we distribute in Debian are clearly the unchanged
> upstream files and the Debian specific patches, and both have a clear
> license.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Ole
>