Hi Rolf, a general question: Are you OK with the way I commit every step in git or would you prefer that I clean up the history a little bit before pushing?
On 18.02.2017 20:14, Rolf Leggewie wrote: > 60fd5fd4c > It's a trivial fix, but if upstream has that spelling error I think it > would be better to keep it. Where do you draw the line? Who knows, > there might be some kind of intended meaning that you and I missed? In > that part of our work, we are just documenting, not correcting IMO. The spelling error was not from upstream, it was mine. ;) And I found a second one in the same line. I corrected it, now. > 08dc66295a > I'm not sure if changing "The entire Linux community" to "Team audio > recorder" is sufficient. The ftp master who rejected the package is fine with this solution. Of course we can still try to find a better solution. > I'm not sure such an entity exists and it's > basically equally opaque. If it's not specific enough to understand who > to contact in case you'd like to ask for a relicensing of the code then > it's not specific enough for Debian. Let's say you'd like to develop a > closed-source variety of audio-recorder, who would you need to ask for > permission? You might be right on this. For me it was quite clear, that Team audio-recorder is the launchpad team: https://launchpad.net/~audio-recorder Maybe we could add this link instead of the email address to the copyright file? > Besides, as I already mentioned previously, my feeling is > that nobody but Osmo Antero has copyright. There are two conditions > that need to be met for this NOT to be true; 1) significant > contributions from third parties and 2) those parties requested for > copyright when making those contributions. 2) is not documented in the > files and it should be IF there was a third-party copyright. I will ask Osmo if he is fine with changing the copyright to him only. I will keep you and the bug in CC. Just did not want to spam Osmo with the rest of the email, since most of it is not interesting for him. > I understand that Osmo enjoys drinking his vine and keep things simple. > But he is making things unnecessarily complicated here by adding an > opaque group of people to the copyright holders. I believe that what he > wants to do is acknowledge outside contributions. That's what the > AUTHORS file is for which is actually present but does not list anybody > besides him. It's fine for him to make a broad statement there such as > "a multitude of patches were gladly received by a number of people from > the Linux community. If you'd like to see your name here specifically > contact me at XYZ". Copyright is about who owns the ultimate rights to > the source. GPL extends quite a few of those rights to the users (such > as the right to modify, redistribute, etc.) What Osmo is doing (and I'm > absolutely certain that is unintentional) is to give basically everyone > who can somehow claim to be part of the Linux community to fully OWN the > code and that includes the right to relicense it, for example. This > would effectively make the source public domain and strip it of the > protections the GPL provides (such as disallowing redistribution as a > closed-source binary program). I am sure Osmo did not intend to release > as public domain. What you actually say is: IF we leave it as it is, the worst case is that the software could be public domain. > This absolutely needs clarification, no way around that. My suggestion > is to simply drop the erroneous and very dangerous line giving the Linux > community or Team Audiorecorder the copyright. All users already have > very broad rights protected under the GPL. Adding that line actually > puts those rights in jeopardy. There is other software under permissive licenses in Debian... I think there are worse things than that. > 329aa8ce287 > "Other" is not a good name for License. I suggest to follow > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/g/granule/copyright-1.4.0-7-4 > or https://github.com/giuliopaci/SPro/blob/master/debian/copyright which > I found doing a quick Google search. I adjusted this. > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/01/msg00054.html says there > is a later version of the file with a better worded license term. If > that's the case it would be advisable for upstream to exchange the > current for the later version. If upstream doesn't do this, we can also > do it in Debian only. If the file is not necessary to build the binary, > we might want to simply drop it via debian/clean. This question needs > more consideration. Upstream in this case is me. ;) I have write access to the upstream repository and I put the po/Makefile.in.in there. The file I added is from the current Testing version of gettext (0.19.8.1-2). I copied the license text from there. We could drop the file, we just would have to run intltoolize before the build process. I was not quite sure how to do it. >> Mainly it is an update of the debian/copyright file. But while I edited >> it, I found a lot of auto-generated files in the source tarball. So I >> deleted them via dquilt patch. I hope this is the right way to handle >> such files. > > Are they giving any problems during the build? If no, then I'd say not > to bother with them at all. If yes and they aren't removed by "dh > clean" already then the file debian/clean is the proper place. Have a > look at "man dh_clean". Simply put, you can list file names one per > line in debian/clean to be removed as one of the first steps during the > build. Wildcards are allowed, RegExp might be. This is better than > using patches because deleting a 1MB file it takes a patch that's > slightly bigger than 1MB. It's easier to read during code inspection as > well. Done. Yours, David
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
