Hi, Thanks for your time to review this again.:)
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 9:00 PM Sean Whitton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +----------------------+ > | REJECT reasoning | > +----------------------+ > > It looks like ocaml-lib/pset.mli etc. are LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception not > LGPL-2. > The lesson I learned here is that my focus is on LICENSE[0] file: ``` The following files are modified versions of map and set from the Objective Caml library and are distributed under the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 as below. ocaml-lib/pmap.mli ocaml-lib/pmap.ml ocaml-lib/pset.mli ocaml-lib/pset.ml ``` And the copyright statement in these files with linking-exception is not as obvious than others like[1]. [0]: https://salsa.debian.org/ocaml-team/lem/-/blob/debian/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads#L69 [1]: https://github.com/rems-project/lem/blob/master/src/ulib/batReturn.ml But you suggest me to apply LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception for ocaml-lib/pmap* and ocaml-lib/pset.*, I am not sure when I look at these files again. For example, the copyright from ocaml-lib/pmap.ml[2] ``` (* Objective Caml *) (* *) (* Xavier Leroy, projet Cristal, INRIA Rocquencourt *) (* *) (* Copyright 1996 Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et *) (* en Automatique. All rights reserved. This file is distributed *) (* under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License, with *) (* the special exception on linking described in file ../LICENSE. *) ``` To my knowledge, I think we can use `LGPL-with-linking-exception` License from the hit, but it seems there is no such License in FOSS. But if we combine the contents of the copyright of these files with the LICENSE[0] file, could we use `LGPL-2-with-linking-exception` as license for these files more appropriate? like this [3], Please correct me if I am wrong here. [2]: https://github.com/rems-project/lem/blob/master/ocaml-lib/pmap.ml#L3C1-L10C74 [3]: https://sources.debian.org/src/why3/1.7.2-2/debian/copyright/?hl=13#L13 > +----------------------+ > | Other comments | > +----------------------+ > > You don't need this much details. You can coalesce copyright statements for > files with the same license. E.g. the stanza for examples/cpp/cmm.lem, > hol-lib/lemLib.sml and hol-lib/lemScript.sml can be a single stanza, and so > on. You probably only need two or three stanzas. Thanks for reminding this again. Here I have one question that needs to be verified. Taking these files as an example[4], could we convert into [5]? The reason I hadn't done this before was that I was worried it would amplify some rights claims for some copyright holders. For example, in [5], I think the below copyright snapshot： ``` Files: examples/cpp/cmm.lem hol-lib/lemLib.sml hol-lib/lemScript.sml Copyright: 2011-2012 Mark Batty 2011-2012 Scott Owens ``` will lead to `Mark Batty` has the same copyright claims on `hol-lib/lemLib.sml` also. Or I am misunderstanding again here? [4]: https://gist.github.com/yuzibo/4e77a2ec7e7cf5a2189f462111bf0794 [5]: https://gist.github.com/yuzibo/473a0de37ba2507caacf47efde7624c3 [6]: https://gist.github.com/yuzibo/4e77a2ec7e7cf5a2189f462111bf0794#file-copyright-orginal-L7 > > +----------------------+ > | N.B. | > +----------------------+ > > This review may not be exhaustive. Please check your source package > against your d/copyright and the ftpmaster REJECT-FAQ, throughly, > before uploading to NEW again. > I'm sorry that this package takes up so much of everyone's time and energy but I believe that I have learned so many valuable experiences in this packaging. Thanks for all again! Yours sincerely, Bo > Thank you for your time and contribution! > > Sean
