Hello On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right? > > I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did > > not include such source comments (hsftp). > > It depends on the particular case.
Ok. > > That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead > > to be clear. > > No no, I think you still don't understand. > > Merely distributing a copy of the GPL *means nothing*. What must > happen is the author must say "this work is distributed under the > terms of the GPL." It is totally irrelevant what any of the files are > called. Ok. But he do that in the current version right? If he does not do that in a later version is not very relevant. > In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is > technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies > *which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the > license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in > LICENSE, or by some other way. He did not, and that's a bug. Ok. If we need to be that hard we have to file serious bugs on a great number of packages! Here is some samples: hsftp - note in readme but no licensing source comments kernel-patch-ctx - no notes at all, but they are kernel patches and upstream release them (or did at least) just as patches. lshw - just a COPYING file cron-apt - just a COPYING file (this should be ok as I'm the author) setserial - just as a small note in version.h and linux/serial.h no GPL document in upstream sources at all. ... etc. So to be real even a package that was a part of base (until just a week or two ago, setserial) has uncertain licensing infomration. I may even find it in tools that are part of base, but I have not started to look yet. I'll CC debian-legal about this. > The latest version, by contrast, contains no such statement at all, > anywhere at all. It simply distributes the GPL (which the old version > did too). It is totally irrelevant what filename the GPL is put in. > > What makes this a serious bug, and something that could warrant the > package being removed, is that we should have real doubts about the > intentions of the upstream maintainer. He *removed* the grant of > permission to copy--not just failed to include one--and he has > declined to answer repeated queries from Debian about what his > licensing intentions are. Ok, I'll try to contact him too. > > Did you actually read what I wrote? The new upstream has a "COPYING" > > file with full GPL statement. Is that not enough as copying file > > (except for source notes)? > > No. It is totally irrelevant what the filename is. Distibuting a > copy of the GPL is not, in any way, shape, or form, the same thing as > licensing a program under the GPL. Ok, then I have to file serious bugs on a number of my own packages, right, even if I'm the author? > > Do you really think this is a problem still? It can not be of 'serious' > > severity at least. Not at least unless you want to keep the sarge > > release away for a big number of months. > > Hogwash. The consequence is that mmake would not be part of sarge. > Mmake is not a very important program. Even if it has been in debian for a VERY long time? It was a part of woody (at least). Not that I really care about mmake, because I have never used it. It is the principle that bothers me. You are probably right but I really object on the severity of it. Regards, // Ola > Thomas > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
