On 1/23/19 9:50 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org> writes: >> Domenico Andreoli <ca...@debian.org> writes: >> >>> the situation of dwarves-dfsg improved a lot over the weekend >> >> That's good to hear. What is the event you're referring to? Can you give >> a URL to something that describes this change? > > Upstream (in CC) reacted to my request of clarification and patches > have been applied upstream and on Salsa. See bug 919356 [0] (please > keep in CC). > >>> the only knot left is now the license of hash.h >>> >>> This file is also present in the kernel [0] with an updated copyright >>> but still without license. >> >> The file you show (in the Linux code base) seems likely to have an >> equivalent implementation under a different license, from some other >> code base. > > This will require research and work unlikely to be done before Buster > release. Are we going to drop this package for now? > >>> I received a private email from somebody in the kernel community who >>> already tried to contact Nadia in the past but did not get any reply. >> >> Thank you also for contacting the Linux developers forum to ask >> <URL:https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1900588.html>. > > (also in CC now) > >>> I think that pushing it to non-free is formally the right thing but I >>> actually feel it's not the right thing. >> >> To know that work (that file) is free software, we need a clear grant of >> some specific license, for that work. >> >> If the work is not free, it would be incorrect to have the work in Debian. > > Is it possible that for the kernel it is instead correct because it is, > as whole, covered by its COPYING? > >> Alternatives, for complying with the Debian Free Software Guidelines with >> this package, include: >> >> * Find a credible grant of license under some GPL-compatible free >> license to that exact file. Document that explicit grant in the Debian >> package. This demonstrates the work is DFSG-free. >> >> * Convince ‘dwarves-dfsg’ upstream to replace that file with a different >> implementation (I don't know whether such an implementation exists) >> under a license compatible with the same version of GNU GPL. Document >> that explicit grant in the Debian package. This demonstrates the >> modified work is DFSG-free. > > Arnaldo, what priority would you give to this task? > >> >> * Replace that file in Debian only, with a different implementation as >> above. Document that explicit grant in the Debian package. This >> demonstrates the modified Debian package is DFSG-free. >> >> * Move the work to the ‘non-free’ area. >> >> * Remove the work altogether. >> >> Those are in descending order of (my recommended) preference. > > Thanks, > Domenico > > [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919356 >
It was [pointed out] by one of our license group that [hash.h] is the same that has a GPL-2+ in [fio] which has a signed-off-by. References: [pointed out] https://bugs.gentoo.org/677586#c1 [hash.h] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/fio.git/commit/hash.h?id=bdc7211e190482f0c17c109a0d90834a6611be1c [fio] https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/f/fio/fio_3.12-2_copyright -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
