On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:19:47 +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: >>> * Package name : polygraph >>> Version : 4.0.11-1 >>> Upstream Author : The Measurement Factory, Inc. >>> <[email protected]> >>> * URL : http://www.web-polygraph.org >>> * License : Apache-2.0 >>> Section : net
>> I have now started to review this package and found at least two fundamental >> problems: I wish all our "fundamental problems" were that easy :-) >> - The Apache license also gives a fairly precise description how it is to be >> applied to your work, as can be seen at the very end of >> >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> >> The codebase of polygraph does not seem to follow this requirement, which >> (1) >> makes checking for proper licensing extremely hard and (2) may even be in >> violation with the license requirements. FWIW, Apache itself does not follow what you consider a license application requirement. For example, the very web page you linked to above, has no preamble and just says "Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation, Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0" at the bottom. Moreover, Apache httpd sources use a different preamble as well (e.g., httpd-2.2.17/srclib/apr/mmap/unix/mmap.c -- the first file I checked). As for being "extremely hard" to check, it seems like an exaggeration. Would the following preamble really leave a lot of question with regard to the distribution license? > /* Web Polygraph http://www.web-polygraph.org/ > * (C) 2003-2006 The Measurement Factory > * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 */ As you can see, Polygraph preamble uses the exact same text used by Apache site. That text is a part of what is recommended by Apache License; it just does not repeat what is already said in Apache License itself. IMO, we are not doing anything wrong here, but we should be pragmatic about this issue: Humans should have no problems, but if the problem is with automated tools used by Debian, we should try to accommodate them. There is probably some flexibility here because they apparently work fine with other packages using custom preambles, such as Apache httpd. For example, perhaps including the URL of the Apache license would be sufficient to pass those automated checks? Thank you, Alex. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
