Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced that such considerations are important, I still think that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified. Hi, I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always considered the right place to document copyright information for individual binary packages is package.copyright, which ends up as simply /u/s/d/package/copyright. I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the technical point. An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev packages does not harm. Regards, thibaut. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9IbKAAoJEJOUU0jg3ChATuoQAMCR2IMvkL0N3zuYajUOG7a8 6kn5yEr1x0EfP05qGRU4xVjGKV+Xsx/o2fN9zsOhRdNeVSeYjTuuyrzd/RwwGquP FJq19UppiUxouOIcfP4tJ3KorjdlI7IyVZhtVBzd5czGO+PAnhisWVWvXC7kSP9a HwpIFLtouksCBIaaUHLoO/jWELq3X8Nme8npLSrCiqAFNjpigxDkVyp6sl0JwlrC opA7Rf64tc/0OBBgeh7azaYmK6ujoN5njuqCxavRzPE3duhblUeM4VBcxMk3LrTn GXgRHfVnmF/hGhHhfnRtUjHN7obO7Q7q/iXgQv/cOn3XEnH8m4G28HwiX5JwLyBN lIDpLtRzExI9Sc4dvvAolrqlg7x0GaA8w9/SkUu3guAhA4PvkmiFng5yekGs5DUi 5HafW94HSy2MrwOJc856T3ANGTPhspRkCzbIAK67nmz2TxPgLzUOUba9niot0bvw eMHRMmW7GnL0OrgC8xtwt6/xNsEmPV5lwovJueR1EAFC3MdYyAmE0MdZbhQp8aYE Pap4CIS3gH5vMKm0OofhvH2S0n2esLaJF3uBlmsrE/hocgUxYIYxDYwNd2Adxc2o X5yS6fzkWRDv/YgrfhQOqln5dI0Lm/nm2HajjoHYMxmFo+KcQsGd8lQ/9B+2ljQ6 DQkNjaWHyHs5IUHcUYlv =WhCJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50f486d4.9090...@debian.org
Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced that such considerations are important, I still think that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified. Hi, I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always considered the right place to document copyright information for individual binary packages is package.copyright, which ends up as simply /u/s/d/package/copyright. I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the technical point. An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev packages does not harm. I am aware of the techical feature of debhelper to install per-package copyright files. In the past I saw that as an indication that indeed the copyright file was intended to cover both source and effective licensing. During my partitipation in defining the copyright file format 1.0, however, it was brought up that there is no such requirement for effective licensing - the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 15/01/2013 14:41, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced that such considerations are important, I still think that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified. Hi, I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always considered the right place to document copyright information for individual binary packages is package.copyright, which ends up as simply /u/s/d/package/copyright. I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the technical point. An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev packages does not harm. Hi again, All I'm saying is that the natural place to look for such information is the binary package's copyright file, a.k.a. debian/package.copyright, and that neither devref not Policy mention the latter. In the past I saw that as an indication that indeed the copyright file was intended to cover both source and effective licensing. Yes, that's also my reading of Policy 12.5: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. In other words, copyright file (as distributed in the binary package) must cover not only the copyright (which applies mostly on the source) but also the distribution license (which applies on the binaries as well). Note the *must* here in the binary package, in contrast with *should* debian/copyright in the source package: A copy of the file which will be installed in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the source package. which implicitly allows for debian/package.copyright in relevant cases, i.e. when the applicable license terms is not the same for all the binaries, e.g. some binary linked with GPLed code. During my partitipation in defining the copyright file format 1.0, however, it was brought up that there is no such requirement for effective licensing - the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind this, because I think you where right in the first place. In the first quote above, its [...] distribution license refers to the package. Very clearly, package here must be read as binary package, which you grab from a few lines later: /usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory in /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source and the first package Depends on the second. Kind regards, Thibaut. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9WeGAAoJEJOUU0jg3ChA+jwQAJaGlJm6ljuzYFV266yQr0V/ Kva9ofaeBSxJPMBvipudv53Rcd51QykG6HHyKYBzmBGiDL0VS0hj8qXTEhCO2ECW 6Joe2ILzzBi3QZcGV1mQ3TrkfbjEgBO6/bG1fh1HZn4DWC5IENnJsff3zPBldPA3 zQ65dq3atZ8FEZoAxHGRPbJYHBBDBrLyq3AlyKoXOdGjl67ciPYptHei+cn7y0Ti i0CUfspEY70UCiYtw/YP9mCpEzIVlx+gYQly0ct6td2Rx142lhG0Jhwp7rMrn7nN tD+rOxc1X/5a3bFGGXxIeDvzJw/2OECVpKDvMGw0Wh4L3rUjYej+WSl9DMVSkzrK /DnjL6RhyulFSwMHPLdELMr+1CzbmpCXi8UkGshBEnML5NvzOn44yvrJNju0wkW/ fjZTtXfIUoMweI2VIpCPK3Aa4bffG1YCrLjOg3/WIf2MNsLMTIv1BUGTo9uDz6hP 3uaKJDG0AUruiqtplvG4P8UTBSwBY8Af/Pyp9vXOWdcLAp/A1OyE+lfLcEj2lC3M xGUIz35gBiNjrUJRf2PloXrIqHFedHCGhFn/2u6a2YerblKUcs7MV87Ujqs8oltR Fmuk50SIa1FAvaTwrqocQYkkohhRdZHNQXozvNpQdzjuTiVm3BvpUonm8PGHpkfq 9hLnuuCdzVGAm6LVYPiO =+ZnX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50f56787.4090...@debian.org
Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. That's not true. The purpose of the copyright file has *always* been to ensure that the license for a given binary package is correctly documented in that package. It's just that the safest way to ensure this is by documenting the entire license for the source package in debian/copyright and copying that file to each of the binary packages. Unfortunately we took a wrong turn somewhere and started considering debian/copyright itself the requirement, and that's a *bug*. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130115195935.gd24...@virgil.dodds.net
Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-01-15 20:59:35) On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. That's not true. The purpose of the copyright file has *always* been to ensure that the license for a given binary package is correctly documented in that package. It's just that the safest way to ensure this is by documenting the entire license for the source package in debian/copyright and copying that file to each of the binary packages. Unfortunately we took a wrong turn somewhere and started considering debian/copyright itself the requirement, and that's a *bug*. Ahh, I think I realize now where I went wrong: the copyright file is ambiguous! Even if I recall and understand correctly that during the DEP5 process leading to copyright file format 1.0 it was pointed out that the debian/copyright is only about source, that is *not* the same as saying that the /usr/share/doc/package/copyright files are only about source. Source and effective licensing just happen to be identical in simple cases. And copyright file format 1.0 just happen to only verbosely cover source copyright (as I recall the addition of copyright field in header section was only late in the process). Apologies to previous posters who might have seen this all along and tried to point it out to me. :-/ I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective license. ...and will start do similar for all the other packages that I am involved in, as I examine copyrights and licensing for those and convert to machine-readable format. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective license. ...and will start do similar for all the other packages that I am involved in, as I examine copyrights and licensing for those and convert to machine-readable format. TBH, I think the best way to go from here is to extend the specification to include extra fields that cover the effective license of given binary packages, and have debhelper and similar packaging tools install appropriate package.copyright files from that. -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caj0ccebvnpwzmpsnbfx1iegwnt5hkqsz8x6-sn2js0kufd-...@mail.gmail.com
