Hi, Why I updated the copyright ?
Calligra is nearly ready to be uploaded to sid. I am just like you : not much
time to dedicate to calligra. So I just take the current procedure to update
the copyright file, et voila. Users are asking for calligra in sid, and with
the GCC-5 transition, we better upload a new version soon.
As I said before, I like to have a clean, reproducible procedure, and well
documented. That's why I created the README.source. I like it because I
usually can't remember how to do all the stuff, and it's much simpler for
newcomer to understand the packaging.
If you want to improve the procedure, just like we all have done before,
you're totally welcome to do it!
But for now, I have seen you trashing all our work, without discussing it
before. You replace it by your work, unfinished, without document it. It's not
a way of working together! So please document precisely your way of creating
and updating the copyright, so we can reproduce it quickly, and then we may
discuss it, to balance the pros and cons.
You proposed to mix GPL and LGPL license in one paragraph. I am not sure it's
a good idea. If someone wants to take only the LGPL parts, for instance to
integrate non free modifications in it, he cannot use the copyright file for
it.
But I am not sure about the goal of the debian/copyright file: is it mean to
be readable by a human ? or only by scripts ?
I agree that grouping the versions of a same license together is a good idea.
And what the others in the team are thinking about it ?
Regards,
Adrien
Le lundi 14 septembre 2015, 18:48:50 Dmitry Smirnov a écrit :
> Hi Adrien,
>
> I've noticed that you re-generated Calligra's copyright and overwritten my
> comprehensive and carefully crafted coverage of "3rdparty/*". I strongly
> object against such action. You probably remember that we already discussed
> that automated copyright generation with "licensecheck" produces highly
> inaccurate results on Calligra. Why are you doing it again? You could have
> achieve better results with "debmake" but even with "debmake" I doubt that
> copyright would be accurate.
>
> I have not forgotten about my promise to finish Calligra's copyright review.
> Although I had no time to finish it yet I'm still working on it and I have
> an idea how can we proceed with nice and tidy copyright file.
>
> The problem with Calligra is that it systematically mixes GPL and LGPL files
> in the same directories which makes it very difficult to group files per
> license because such approach requires to list almost all files in Files
> section of corresponding paragraph in "debian/copyright".
>
> What if we create mixed license paragraph like the following:
>
> Files: gemini/* krita/* gemini/* (etc.)
> Copyright: {list of copyright holders}
> License: GPL-2+ and LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+
> Comment:
> most of 20_000+ of Calligra's files are licensed with one of those
> licenses. Files are grouped here in one paragraph because they are
> mixed within the same folders and share copyrights of the same authors.
>
> Basically I suggest grouping by copyright holders because most GPL and LGPL
> files are modified by the very same developers. (I've used "any" instead of
> "or" in License line because "or" indicated dual-licensed files.)
>
> Documenting exceptions such as BSD-3-clause files deep in source tree would
> be trivial and won't take much effort.
>
> Also since I began working on Calligra v2.9.5 copyright there were two
> releases (2.9.6 and 2.9.7) -- I compared 'em and it is true that reviewing
> changes and updating copyright file with new information is easy as long as
> copyright is accurate and human-editable. The latter is not true when
> "copyright" file is generated with "licensecheck" not to mention serious
> misrepresentation of licensing information in auto-generated file.
>
> Thoughts?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
