On Do, Dez 01, 2011 at 04:13:35 (CET), Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 00:16, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >> On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >>> On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>> > Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in >>> > debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't >>> > match any License: paragraph. >> >> I guess what you find strange is license names of this form: >> >> License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception >> >> That, I believe, is perfectly correct according to (latest drafts of) >> DEP-5. Please elaborate what you find strange about it. > > I do not know what is the current status of DEP5. What I found strange > was the use of spaces (which are otherwise used as separator) in the > license name. > >> >> >>> > I'm not quite sure what is the dep5 way to deal with this. Most >>> > likely the exception should be moved into the license paragraph and >>> > the qualificators to the name (with X exception) removed. >> >> Yes, treating a license that contains an exception as a combined unique >> license is also allowed by DEP-5, but is less usable, as the underlying >> general license is then not machine-readable. >> >> >>> it seems that all those problems only come from the autotools >>> generated stuff, which is something where i have the feeling that it >>> should not create problems at all. >> >> I don't see no problems. >> >> Perhaps the "problem" you are talking about is the one of being >> cumbersome to properly document all these varying licenses for the code >> that be use? > > The problem is spending too much time doing things that give little > gain. Plus, they also make the document less useful by adding unneeded > noise. The files are autogenerated, and they don't either end up or > "pollute" the binaries. This means they are of little use in the > copyright file (which is meant to document binary packages copyright). > >> >> You are free to not use the code if you find that the burden of playing >> along with the rules of the game (which includes documenting licensing!) >> is higher than the benefit of using it. > > Documenting licensing is not part of the rules of the game. The > copyright file is a necessity because the original documentation > (contained in the source package) is not shipped in the binary files, > so we condense that into a single file shipped in every package. There > is no point in documenting stuff that does not end up in the binary > packages. > >> >> >>> i'm therefore wondering, what is the best way to deal with autotools >>> generated files in general. >> >> You can (with your Debian hat on, I am not talking about upstream here) >> repackage the source to *not* include the autogenerated files as part of >> Debian distributed sources. IF the files truly are only autogenerated >> at the target build host you need not document it - but all that we ship >> in sources should be documented, whether or not it is used for the >> production of binary packages! > > I disagree with the above. If something does not end up in the > binaries, it doesn't need to be documented in the copyright file. > >> >> >>> so i asked at #debian-mentors (see end of this mail), with the >>> conclusion (as i read it), that it might probably be best to leave out >>> generated files from debian/copyright alltogether. >> >> I read that not as being "best" but being "tolerated". The big unspoken >> truth is that Debian has a long way to go to properly document all >> licensing - and autotools is not the best place to start, as it is much >> work with little gain (covers little if any new licensing or authors). >> >> >>> would this be acceptable? for you? what do other think? >> >> Acceptable, yes. But ripping out proper documentation as you just did >> now is completely backwards IMO! > > It is unnecessary noise when trying to determine the licensing of > things in the binaries we ship, which is why I said it should be > removed.
Felipe, Thank you very much for stating your opinion such clearly. I fully concur with your view on DEP-5! Cheers, Reinhard -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers