Hi Ben,
I believe you can put this text in the Comment: field of the corresponding
entry in your debian/copyright.
Kind regards,
Nick
--
=Do-
N.AND
2015-05-20 8:46 GMT+02:00 Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au>:
> Howdy all,
>
> Is there a place in ‘debian/copyright’ for the text granting license to
> the work, separate from the text of the license itself?
>
>
> For a simplified example: Package ‘foo’ has a grant of license broadly
> under GPL-3+, and some files under CC-BY-SA-3.
>
> It also has a group of files, ‘libquux/*’, to which license is granted
> by some specific text:
>
> You may modify and/or redistribute this work under the terms of
> either the GPL version 2 or later, or the Creative Commons
> Attribution Share-Alike license version 3.
>
> Should that text – the grant of license for those files – appear in the
> ‘debian/copyright’ file for the package?
>
> It is not the license text itself (that would be the full text of the
> GPL v2 and the CC By-SA v3, respectively), so it doesn't go in a
> separate “License” paragraph.
>
> There does need to be a separate “License: CC-BY-SA-3” paragraph giving
> the full text of that license, but this is different from the text
> *granting* the license in the work.
>
> It is not a grant of license to the work as a whole (it only applies to
> a subset of files), so it doesn't belong in the header paragraph.
>
>
> Does it belong in the “Files: libquux/*” paragraph? The most logical
> place would be in the “License” field of that paragraph, separate from
> the standalone “License” paragraph::
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: […]
> License: GPL-3+
>
> Files: resources/*
> Copyright: […]
> License: CC-BY-SA-3
>
> Files: libquux/*
> Copyright: […]
> License: GPL-2 or CC-BY-SA-3
> You may modify and/or redistribute this work under the terms of
> either the GPL version 2 or later, or the Creative Commons
> Attribution Share-Alike license version 3.
>
> License: CC-BY-SA-3
> THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
> CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK
> IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW.
> […]
>
> That makes sense to me: we have the grant of license where it applies to
> the specific files, and we have the license text itself in a stand-alone
> paragraph.
>
>
> Lintian no longer agrees that's good, though. It complains with the
> warning “dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique”::
>
> W: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique
> N:
> N: This paragraph defines an already defined license.
> N:
> N: According to the specification, short license names are required
> to be
> N: unique within a single copyright file.
> N:
> N: Refer to
> N:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ for
> N: details.
>
> On the face of it, the warning is a false positive in this case: the
> stand-alone “License: CC-BY-SA-3” paragraph is the first and only
> *definition* of that license in the file. The earlier “License
> CC-BY-SA-3” field is not a definition of the license, it is showing the
> text which explicitly *grants* license.
>
> I can see that's not feasible to teach Lintian to distinguish, given the
> current ‘debian/copyright’ format definition. But I don't want to just
> override the Lintian check; it's good to catch *true* positives that
> violate the copyright format in the manner described.
>
>
> What is the correct solution for this? Can we have all that information
> in the places I've described? Can we have them elsewhere in the file, in
> a format easier for Lintian to check?
>
> --
> \ “Our products just aren't engineered for security.” —Brian |
> `\ Valentine, senior vice-president of Microsoft Windows |
> _o__) development, 2002 |
> Ben Finney
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85lhgjzqy3....@benfinney.id.au
>
>
