Bug#459511: Consider adding Perl License to common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

"Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:28:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> "Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

 I don't think it makes sense to include in common-licenses something
 that's just a reference to other common licenses.  It's not like the
 boilerplate text for Perl modules is long; it's only about six lines,
 and you'd still need to include at least a couple of lines to refer to
 the file in common-licenses anyway.

>>> True.  But as I carefully explained: in my view, it's not about saving
>>> bytes; it's about labelling.  And about avoiding copying errors, which
>>> manifestly take place.

>> Wouldn't http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat be a better way
>> to address the labelling concern?
>
> Thanks for the link.  I like the proposal from the point of view of
> labelling.
>
> However:
>
> (1) This is only a proposal; common-licenses exists today.

Yes, but it's not really a good labelling solution, IMO.

> (2) I didn't grasp from the proposal whether the fully license text
> must appear in the copyright file (or in common-licenses).  If we can
> simply put "License: GPL-1+ | Artistic" for a perl module, then I'm
> happy.  If we have to put that PLUS the prose of the Perl license,
> then we're no further ahead.

Hm.  You said that the concern was about labelling.  The labelling is
there whether you have to include the license text as well as the label or
not.  How could this be "no further ahead"?

> At present, yes I agree that we should include the authors' copyright
> statements.  
>
> Perhaps I should mention what started this whole bug report.  I
> uploaded a package that included a Perl module with the following
> license.
>
> # Copyright (c) 1995-98 Greg Ward. All rights reserved.  This package is
> # free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same
> # terms as Perl itself.
>
> When I tried to upload the package with *the author's* copyright
> statement in debian/copyrights (together with a reference to
> /usr/share/doc/perl/copyright), it was rejected by the ftp admins on
> the grounds of the following lintian error:
>
> copyright-file-lacks-pointer-to-perl-license
>
> If your package is released under the same terms as Perl itself,
> it should refer to the Artistic and GPL license files in the
> /usr/share/common-licenses directory.
>
> Refer to Policy Manual, section 12.5 for details.
>
> This forces me to REPLACE or AUGMENT the author statement with my own
> text.  This is how the aforementioned copying errors arise.

You have to augment the statement with additional wording no matter what,
whether that be pointers to the GPL and to the Artistic license or a
pointer to a file that says the same thing.  Copying and pasting one text
isn't more difficult than the other.

> I agree that someone might be sloppy about the license and
> inappropriately point to the boilerplate.  But it is also true that
> today someone could be sloppy and inappropriately copy the text of
> /usr/share/doc/perl/copyright.  I don't imagine that the presense of
> Perl's license in common-licenses would make it more likely; do you?
>
> To be clear: In all cases, the author copyright would be copied into
> debian/copyright.  In those cases where it mentions something about "the
> same terms as perl", you can simply add a line to the effect "The Perl
> license may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/Perl" rather than
> cutting and pasting the contents of /usr/share/doc/perl/copyright.

Well... for this part of the argument I think we understand each other's
arguments and haven't convinced each other, so it's probably time for
other people to weigh in.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#459511: Consider adding Perl License to common-licenses

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:28:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> >> I don't think it makes sense to include in common-licenses something
> >> that's just a reference to other common licenses.  It's not like the
> >> boilerplate text for Perl modules is long; it's only about six lines,
> >> and you'd still need to include at least a couple of lines to refer to
> >> the file in common-licenses anyway.
> 
> > True.  But as I carefully explained: in my view, it's not about saving
> > bytes; it's about labelling.  And about avoiding copying errors, which
> > manifestly take place.
> 
> Wouldn't http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat be a better way
> to address the labelling concern?

Thanks for the link.  I like the proposal from the point of view of
labelling.

However:

(1) This is only a proposal; common-licenses exists today.

(2) I didn't grasp from the proposal whether the fully license text
must appear in the copyright file (or in common-licenses).  If we can
simply put "License: GPL-1+ | Artistic" for a perl module, then I'm
happy.  If we have to put that PLUS the prose of the Perl license,
then we're no further ahead.


> As for copying errors, I don't disagree, but there are also a lot of Perl
> modules that *aren't* covered under the same terms as Perl or that have
> little niggling variations.  We should also be including the copyright
> statements from the authors in the Debian copyright file.

At present, yes I agree that we should include the authors' copyright
statements.  

Perhaps I should mention what started this whole bug report.  I
uploaded a package that included a Perl module with the following
license.

# Copyright (c) 1995-98 Greg Ward. All rights reserved.  This package is
# free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same
# terms as Perl itself.

When I tried to upload the package with *the author's* copyright
statement in debian/copyrights (together with a reference to
/usr/share/doc/perl/copyright), it was rejected by the ftp admins on
the grounds of the following lintian error:

copyright-file-lacks-pointer-to-perl-license

If your package is released under the same terms as Perl itself,
it should refer to the Artistic and GPL license files in the
/usr/share/common-licenses directory.

Refer to Policy Manual, section 12.5 for details.

This forces me to REPLACE or AUGMENT the author statement with my own
text.  This is how the aforementioned copying errors arise.


> I guess I'm a
> bit skeptical that we gain that much in overall correctness in the
> copyright file by providing easy access to boilerplate for people to refer
> to.  I'm worried that we'd just trade one form of errors (copying
> mistakes) for another (referring to the boilerplate when it isn't
> appropriate or without including sufficient information about the
> non-boilerplate parts, like the copyright statement).

I agree that someone might be sloppy about the license and
inappropriately point to the boilerplate.  But it is also true that
today someone could be sloppy and inappropriately copy the text of
/usr/share/doc/perl/copyright.  I don't imagine that the presense of
Perl's license in common-licenses would make it more likely; do you?

To be clear: In all cases, the author copyright would be copied into
debian/copyright.  In those cases where it mentions something about
"the same terms as perl", you can simply add a line to the effect "The
Perl license may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/Perl" rather
than cutting and pasting the contents of
/usr/share/doc/perl/copyright.


Cheers,
-Steve


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#459511: Consider adding Perl License to common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

"Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I don't think it makes sense to include in common-licenses something
>> that's just a reference to other common licenses.  It's not like the
>> boilerplate text for Perl modules is long; it's only about six lines,
>> and you'd still need to include at least a couple of lines to refer to
>> the file in common-licenses anyway.

> True.  But as I carefully explained: in my view, it's not about saving
> bytes; it's about labelling.  And about avoiding copying errors, which
> manifestly take place.

Wouldn't http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat be a better way
to address the labelling concern?

As for copying errors, I don't disagree, but there are also a lot of Perl
modules that *aren't* covered under the same terms as Perl or that have
little niggling variations.  We should also be including the copyright
statements from the authors in the Debian copyright file.  I guess I'm a
bit skeptical that we gain that much in overall correctness in the
copyright file by providing easy access to boilerplate for people to refer
to.  I'm worried that we'd just trade one form of errors (copying
mistakes) for another (referring to the boilerplate when it isn't
appropriate or without including sufficient information about the
non-boilerplate parts, like the copyright statement).

Of course, I'm one of those people who thinks that in retrospect we
probably shouldn't have included the UCB BSD license in common-licenses
either, although taking it out probably isn't worth the trouble.  I think
common-licenses is most useful for long license documents that would take
up a measurable amount of the archive if they were duplicated in every
package covered by them, and other goals, like labelling or
machine-parsable copyright information, is better addressed in other ways.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#459511: Consider adding Perl License to common-licenses

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Debian-Policy: I suggested that the Perl license be added to
> > common-licenses.  Santiago Vila, the base-files maintainer, pointed
> > out that the debian-policy list members make this decision.  So I'm
> > floating the idea for discussion here.
> 
> I don't think it makes sense to include in common-licenses something
> that's just a reference to other common licenses.  It's not like the
> boilerplate text for Perl modules is long; it's only about six lines, and
> you'd still need to include at least a couple of lines to refer to the
> file in common-licenses anyway.

True.  But as I carefully explained: in my view, it's not about saving
bytes; it's about labelling.  And about avoiding copying errors, which
manifestly take place.

Thanks,
-Steve


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#459511: Consider adding Perl License to common-licenses

[Russ Allbery]

"Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Debian-Policy: I suggested that the Perl license be added to
> common-licenses.  Santiago Vila, the base-files maintainer, pointed
> out that the debian-policy list members make this decision.  So I'm
> floating the idea for discussion here.

I don't think it makes sense to include in common-licenses something
that's just a reference to other common licenses.  It's not like the
boilerplate text for Perl modules is long; it's only about six lines, and
you'd still need to include at least a couple of lines to refer to the
file in common-licenses anyway.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#459511: Consider adding Perl License to common-licenses

[Steve M. Robbins]

Debian-Policy: I suggested that the Perl license be added to
common-licenses.  Santiago Vila, the base-files maintainer, pointed
out that the debian-policy list members make this decision.  So I'm
floating the idea for discussion here.


On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:18:09PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> 
> > Package: base-files
> > Version: 4.0.2
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > CPAN ships an enormous number of perl modules, many of which
> > have a license similar to the following:
> > 
> > This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
> > 
> > It would be helpful, then, to just point to a common-licenses file.
> > 
> > As it stands now, each package is obliged to copy the Perl license:
> > 
> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of either:
> > 
> > a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
> >Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later
> >version, or
> > 
> > b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Perl.
> > 
> > [/usr/share/doc/perl/copyright]
> > 
> > into its own copyright.  Many choose instead to paraphrase, sometimes
> > omitting information.  For example, libcgi-session-perl omits mention
> > of the GPL option:
> > 
> >   This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >   modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
> > 
> >   Larry Wall's "Artistic License" for perl can be found in
> >   /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic.
> > 
> >   [/usr/share/doc/libcgi-session-perl/copyright]
> > 
> > A common-licenses file will alleviate these kind of copying
> > errors.
> 
> I don't think we need new files in common-licenses, as we already have
> the Artistic License and the GPL there. IMHO, common-licenses should
> be for proper license texts, not for "license blurbs". 

I don't see what is the distinction you're drawing.  The Perl license
is the license for Perl; it is therefore a "proper" license.  Yes,
it is shorter than the two licenses it references; but surely that's
not the criterion for selecting common licenses?

The main benefit of including a license in common-licenses is
labelling.  I only have to read the license text once, remember its
label, and afterwards I can understand the license of a package that
says "... under the terms of GPL-2".  I don't have to read the entire
license text to see if it is similar to the GPL-2 license, but subtly
altered in one of the clauses.  And I don't have to worry about
copying errors, as described above.  (Is it a copy error or a
deliberate change?)

That is, of course, only a benefit if there are a significant number
of packages sharing a given license.  Given the size of CPAN, and the
number of perl modules already packaged that share the license of
Perl, I think that threshold is reached.

Your thoughts appreciated.

-Steve


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#459511: Consider adding Perl License to common-licenses

[Steve M. Robbins]

Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.2
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

CPAN ships an enormous number of perl modules, many of which
have a license similar to the following:

This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.

It would be helpful, then, to just point to a common-licenses file.

As it stands now, each package is obliged to copy the Perl license:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of either:

a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
   Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later
   version, or

b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Perl.

[/usr/share/doc/perl/copyright]

into its own copyright.  Many choose instead to paraphrase, sometimes
omitting information.  For example, libcgi-session-perl omits mention
of the GPL option:

  This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
  modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.

  Larry Wall's "Artistic License" for perl can be found in
  /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic.

  [/usr/share/doc/libcgi-session-perl/copyright]

A common-licenses file will alleviate these kind of copying
errors.

Thanks
-Steve




-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.22riemann (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii  base-passwd   3.5.16 Debian base system master password
ii  gawk [awk]1:3.1.5.dfsg-4 GNU awk, a pattern scanning and pr
ii  mawk [awk]1.3.3-11   a pattern scanning and text proces

base-files recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]