Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Re: Luca Capello 2006-03-28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just to be sure, is the following enough for the BSD license? This software is licensed under the terms of the BSD license, which can be found on Debian systems in the file /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD or from http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php The license was modified to reflect that $AUTHOR, not the Regents of the University of California, is the author. It feels wrong to do that, I'd copy the whole text. IMHO having the (C) Regents line in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD makes that file practically useless, except for using the text as a cut-and-paste template. The fact that every (L)GPL packages' copyright points to /usr/share/common-licenses/ is misleading. Packagers are required to put the *full* license in debian/copyright (be it a 'short' license like BSD-style, be it a long text as the GPL uses). The ability to point to another file is just a matter of convenience for a some licenses. Most new maintainers seem to get that wrong. Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Hello! On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:06:05 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: Re: Luca Capello 2006-03-28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just to be sure, is the following enough for the BSD license? [...] The license was modified to reflect that $AUTHOR, not the Regents of the University of California, is the author. It feels wrong to do that, I'd copy the whole text. IMHO having the (C) Regents line in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD makes that file practically useless, except for using the text as a cut-and-paste template. The fact that every (L)GPL packages' copyright points to /usr/share/common-licenses/ is misleading. Packagers are required to put the *full* license in debian/copyright (be it a 'short' license like BSD-style, be it a long text as the GPL uses). I'm not an English native speaker, but I think this is not what it's reported in the Debian New Maintainer's Guide [1] or in the Debian Policy Manual [2]. [Debian New Maintainer's Guide] 4.2 `copyright' file [...] The important things to add to this file are the place you got the package from and the actual copyright notice and license. You must include the complete license, unless it's one of the common free software licenses such as GNU GPL or LGPL, BSD or the Artistic license, when you can just refer to the appropriate file in /usr/share/common-licenses/ directory that exists on every Debian system. - [Debian Policy Manual] 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. [...] Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL should refer to the files /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, and /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL respectively, rather than quoting them in the copyright file. = Please correct me if I'm wrong :-) Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html#s-copyright [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile pgpdnEVWLDDkb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Re: Luca Capello 2006-03-28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please correct me if I'm wrong :-) That's what I intended to say, sorry if I made the impression of contradicting you. The point was that some people new to packaging seem to think that they don't have to include the full license, and if the license is something != GPL, just ignore that fact. Not getting debian/copyright right is the reason I reject most sponsor uploads on the first try. Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Luca Capello [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Debian Policy Manual] 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. [...] Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL should refer to the files /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, and /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL respectively, rather than quoting them in the copyright file. Now, Perl and a lot of Perl related packages are licensed under GPLv1. Shouldn't Debian provide the text for this one as well? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 21:20 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed that my name would appear more frequently that the author's for a work which is not mine. Also, I feel a bit lazy and do not want the burden of changing the copyright file whenever one of my modifications is accepted or obsoleted. Is it OK if I release the patches and the manpages in the public domain, and I do not mention the manpage and the patches in the copyright file? I recommend always adding an additional section to debian/copyright giving an explicit statement about the copyright of the packaging work. It's just good copyright hygiene, since otherwise people have to make guesses and assumptions that may not be correct. I think thats a good practice. But I'm not sure that a concordance of individual copyright holders in the packaging file as asserted earlier in this thread is of significant use - its certainly hard to maintain (have to check every single file in every upstream change for new (c) holders), and I'm dubious about the legal need: Asserting that the copyright is held by the primary authors and others as listed in the source, or in the projects AUTHORS file if it maintains one should be sufficient no? Perhaps we should - debian-legal? Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Scripsit Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: Raphael Hertzog 2006-03-26 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Each package with translations has several dozens of copyright holder, we don't have to keep that list in the copyright file, do we ? And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff. The generated autofoo stuff does not end up in the .deb, so the copyright file needs not describe it. -- Henning Makholm Vend dig ikke om! Det er et meget ubehageligt syn! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Henning Makholm wrote: And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff. The generated autofoo stuff does not end up in the .deb, so the copyright file needs not describe it. It often ends up in the source package (depending when you run the autotools), which we do distribute. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Scripsit Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Henning Makholm wrote: And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff. The generated autofoo stuff does not end up in the .deb, so the copyright file needs not describe it. It often ends up in the source package (depending when you run the autotools), which we do distribute. But is the Debian copyright file supposed to describe the source package? Not according to my understanding; the source package already includes the various upstream copyright messages in their original positions. -- Henning MakholmMost of us manage to keep our body count quite low. It's the neighborly way to live. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Henning Makholm wrote: And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff. The generated autofoo stuff does not end up in the .deb, so the copyright file needs not describe it. It often ends up in the source package (depending when you run the autotools), which we do distribute. But is the Debian copyright file supposed to describe the source package? I think so. Not according to my understanding; the source package already includes the various upstream copyright messages in their original positions. First of all, that's not always true: Some upstreams don't properly write their copyright files; or they include source files from other projects, but copy only the interesting files, in other words they don't include the other project's copyright file. Have a look at #218105 which I'm currently working on... Second, in most cases if you're interested in the copyright and licensing of a piece of software, you're interested in the sources, anyway. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
On 10605 March 1977, Florian Weimer wrote: As *many* rejects out of the NEW-Queue[2] are still due to broken or incomplete copyright-files - lets refresh that information. Just for clarification, since there seems to be this increased interest in copyright notices: Do developers need to verify that these copyright notices are accurate? They should verify that as far as they can. Which IMO means looking at the source if there is anything obviously wrong (like if upstream used some little script to attach his GOPL notice above all files, and made that also for a file originally under another license, which he just copied). That of course can easily be done at the same time you check the source tarball while building your debian/copyright. -- bye Joerg It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens. -- Woody Allen pgpMvXsx7CJ8o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
On 10606 March 1977, Henning Makholm wrote: But is the Debian copyright file supposed to describe the source package? Not according to my understanding; the source package already includes the various upstream copyright messages in their original positions. We distribute the source, and the copyright file is our location for all license information for one package. So it needs to contain anything From the source tarball. -- bye Joerg liw we have release cycles, that's why it takes so long to get a release out; if we had release race cars, things would go a lot faster pgpMun6ra7bC7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
On 10606 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote: I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed that my name would appear more frequently that the author's for a work which is not mine. Also, I feel a bit lazy and do not want the burden of changing the copyright file whenever one of my modifications is accepted or obsoleted. Is it OK if I release the patches and the manpages in the public domain, and I do not mention the manpage and the patches in the copyright file? Hrm. Of course not every author of a single patch with a few lines, or a manpage or so is needed to be put into the copyright file. That is more for packages where Upstream randomly copied files from other peoples packages into, or sometimes whole subdirectories containing other works... -- bye Joerg Some AM to his NM on [11 Aug. 2004]: You already won't get through Front Desk and Account Manager approvals before sarge,[...] [Note: He made it! :) ] pgpPhuKbSRP7r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Hello! On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:29:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Some extra hints: - Its not enough to have the following two-liner: | On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public | License can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' | file. There are license headers, like the one used for GPL in the example below, you should use those. Just to be sure, is the following enough for the BSD license? This software is licensed under the terms of the BSD license, which can be found on Debian systems in the file /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD or from http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php The license was modified to reflect that $AUTHOR, not the Regents of the University of California, is the author. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca pgp55EstzuGBG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
* Joerg Jaspert: As *many* rejects out of the NEW-Queue[2] are still due to broken or incomplete copyright-files - lets refresh that information. Just for clarification, since there seems to be this increased interest in copyright notices: Do developers need to verify that these copyright notices are accurate? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Joerg Jaspert wrote: In many packages there is more than one author, more than one copyright-holder and more than one license. Do not miss to list them all, even if that other license is just for one file. Yes, any single file is important. Each package with translations has several dozens of copyright holder, we don't have to keep that list in the copyright file, do we ? I understand that we have to be picky for packages where problems can be expected, but in general the copyright file should not reproduce the list of all the copyright holders. I suggest that it points to the relevant files (AUTHORS and similar). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Re: Raphael Hertzog 2006-03-26 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Each package with translations has several dozens of copyright holder, we don't have to keep that list in the copyright file, do we ? And we ignore any (C) FSF in generated autofoo stuff. Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:29:48PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote : In many packages there is more than one author, more than one copyright-holder and more than one license. Do not miss to list them all, even if that other license is just for one file. Yes, any single file is important. Dear Joerg, I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed that my name would appear more frequently that the author's for a work which is not mine. Also, I feel a bit lazy and do not want the burden of changing the copyright file whenever one of my modifications is accepted or obsoleted. Is it OK if I release the patches and the manpages in the public domain, and I do not mention the manpage and the patches in the copyright file? Best Regards, -- Charles Plessy Wako, Saitama, Japon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How (not) to write copyright files - take two
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed that my name would appear more frequently that the author's for a work which is not mine. Also, I feel a bit lazy and do not want the burden of changing the copyright file whenever one of my modifications is accepted or obsoleted. Is it OK if I release the patches and the manpages in the public domain, and I do not mention the manpage and the patches in the copyright file? I recommend always adding an additional section to debian/copyright giving an explicit statement about the copyright of the packaging work. It's just good copyright hygiene, since otherwise people have to make guesses and assumptions that may not be correct. Here's an example from one of my packages: Debianized by Robert S. Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED]1998-03-21 Adopted by Chad C. Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001-02-06 Adopted by Martin O. Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-11-02 Adopted by Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-04-18 It was downloaded from: http://www.radix.net/~cknudsen/gtimer/ although the current home page appears to be: http://www.k5n.us/gtimer.php Upstream author: Craig Knudsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian packaging copyright: Changes by Robert S. Edmonds, Chad C. Walstrom, and Martin O. Hicks did not have explicit copyright statements. See the Debian changelog for the dates of changes. Presumably all their changes may be redistributed under the same terms as GTimer itself. Changes by Russ Allbery are copyright 2005, 2006 Russ Allbery and may be redistributed and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Copyright: (C) 1999 Craig Knudsen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. The full text of the GNU General Public License is available on Debian systems in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
