> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:32:28PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > I guess it could be of higher level since it violates a must in the > > policy, but... > Or maybe it is not a bug at all ... Probably you should start by > pointing out exactly which MUST in policy you think is not covered > here. you must be kidding... first of all it is plain wrong:
Copyright: GPL GPL is not a copyright, it is a license under which a copyright holder (which is not announced in copyright file at all) allows others to use the software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright). GPL license is copyleft license - so there must be a copyright holder, otherwise it is plain not-a-valid-license at all. > > Please refactor copyright file so it properly lists copyright holder(s), > The upstream group we pull from is listed, there is no single copyright > holder. if there is no single -- they all have to be listed. And grep -i -r Copyright . in the source gives me lots of them even if I omit autotools scripts > I'm not aware of any requirement to explicitly re-list everyone > where there are many copyright stakeholders in many files. policy: ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 4.5 Copyright: debian/copyright | | Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright | and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright | (see Copyright information, Section 12.5 for further details). Also see | Copyright considerations, Section 2.3 for further considerations relayed | to copyrights for packages. | | 12.5 Copyright information | | Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright | and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. | This file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. | `--- and you don't list *any* copyright holder just look into copyright of other packages (pretty much any serious package like openssh-server, apache, etc) > > brief text of license, > They are common-licenses, we do what policy says we SHOULD. indeed, I had some misunderstanding in my mind -- mixed up what had to be there and what is considered to be of a good manner to the there ;-) indeed, it seems just reference might be enough. > > what version, > GPL without a version has a well defined meaning also. yeah -- my bad > > Some files in the linuxwacom distribution are now covered by the LGPL, > > the individual files are marked accordingly. > > list those files accordingly > Why? Who will that help? None of these files are presently intended to > be linked to any user application, so from a binary package user point of > view it actually makes very little or no difference whether files are GPL > or LGPL. If you are actually going to be hacking on the code, you'll find > the relevant detail in the files that you modify and link to. well -- why the heck to have copyright file then at all? just add a field in control and list a license... copyright file is intended to list copyright/licensing terms for shipped material so if I need to know them I don't have to go through the code figuring out what I could and what I couldn't link against in my software > I don't see much benefit to duplication that can only go out of date and > become misleading. well.. not exactly -- it might be only helpful -- if license terms were changed at some version (recall xserver/X.org split), having them mentioned in the copyright only be of help if someone decides to go with older license terms by taking older version > available in a way most people would expect to find it. on debian systems we are expected to find them in copyright files and once again that is what policy says (see citing above) > If you want to submit a patch suggesting actual changes I'll certainly > consider it, but otherwise I don't really see much here that constitutes > an actionable bug ... Copyright: GPL is a bug on its own ;-) -- Yaroslav Halchenko Research Assistant, Psychology Department, Rutgers-Newark Student Ph.D. @ CS Dept. NJIT Office: (973) 353-5440x263 | FWD: 82823 | Fax: (973) 353-1171 101 Warren Str, Smith Hall, Rm 4-105, Newark NJ 07102 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
