Source NEW, REVU and licences

Jordan Mantha mantha at
Tue Jul 3 04:53:13 BST 2007

On Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:12:47PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Hi all,
> a problem which I have seen slipping through your review process for a
> long time, and across many packages is making sure the full text of
> the licences used in the package is included in the orig.tar.gz.
> The problem is most common for KDE packages where some of the files
> from upstream KDE are LGPL-ed (typically located in admin/).  If this
> is the case, the source package must contain a copy of the LGPL.
> It would be nice if you tried to catch this more in the future;
> causing fewer rejections and less work for the archive admins and more
> happy MOTUs too. :-)

Thanks Tollef. I'm glad you emailed. I think all MOTU agree that we want to
make things as easy as we can for the archive team and getting feedback
when we're consistently having an issue is really helpful. Are there any
more? I personally would like to have a wiki page that has the Ubuntu
equivalent of the Debian FTP Master Reject FAQ. I imagine most of it could
be reused, and it seems like there are a few things that might be added for
Ubuntu. I think it helps people review when there is a better understanding
and consistency with what to review against. is looking pretty good but
it needs to be reviewed by archive admins I think (notice Colin's comment
on licensing) and it's a bit of a long read compared to Debian's FTP Master
doc more FAQ style. Thoughts?


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list