Bug#518688: caret: debian/copyright file includes a confusing part
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:18:56 +0100 Michael Hanke wrote: [...] On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 12:07:36AM +0100, Francesco Poli (t1000) wrote: [...] Well, I find this to be confusing and misleading. First off, the full text of the GNU GPL v2 should not be included in a debian/copyright file, since it may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 (see Policy 12.5: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile) Moreover, I would like to not see the OpenContent License v1.0 text in the debian/copyright file of a package in main, since this license does *not* meet the DFSG, as explained in: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00046.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00048.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/11/msg00104.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/11/msg00111.html I understand that no file actually included in the caret package is distributed under the non-free terms of the OpenContent License v1.0, hence this does *not* seem to be a serious bug. However, I think that including the full text of an extraneous license in the debian/copyright file of a package is confusing and misleading. First of all, it is correct that the OpenContent license refers to AFNI and not to Caret. Good, thanks for confirming this. Therefore it is also correct that this might lead to confusion. However, the full quote of this file was added upon a request by ftp-masters, since they rejected the package previously, because of this missing piece of information. This sounds strange to me: I am inclined to think that only the relevant part of README.copyright should be quoted in the debian/copyright file, and certainly not the full text of the GPLv2 or of an irrelevant license! Could you please ask ftp-masters for a clarification on this point? [...] Thanks for your interest in Caret, You're welcome. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpzviKrCv53r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#518688: caret: debian/copyright file includes a confusing part
Package: caret Version: 5.6.1~dfsg.1-1 Severity: normal Hi! Thanks for packaging this interesting piece of software for Debian! I took a look at the debian/copyright file and I am confused by the Files: caret_uniformize/* section. It says that those files are under the GNU GPL v2 or later, which is fine, of course. But then it quotes the following text: This source code has been derived from parts of the AFNI package (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov). The copyright statement refers to a 'README.copyright' file, which contains the licensing terms of AFNI. This file is not available in the Caret source distribution, but only included in the binary distribution as 'copyright.afni'. A verbatim copy is provided here. Note, that it also contains the licenses of all third-party code distributed with the AFNI package, but not within Caret. and then goes on quoting this README.copyright file entirely, including the full text of the GNU GPL v2 and of the OpenContent License v1.0 (that is http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml). Well, I find this to be confusing and misleading. First off, the full text of the GNU GPL v2 should not be included in a debian/copyright file, since it may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 (see Policy 12.5: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile) Moreover, I would like to not see the OpenContent License v1.0 text in the debian/copyright file of a package in main, since this license does *not* meet the DFSG, as explained in: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00046.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00048.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/11/msg00104.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/11/msg00111.html I understand that no file actually included in the caret package is distributed under the non-free terms of the OpenContent License v1.0, hence this does *not* seem to be a serious bug. However, I think that including the full text of an extraneous license in the debian/copyright file of a package is confusing and misleading. I hope the debian/copyright file can be changed into a less confusing form. P.S.: the Homepage: field currently points to http://brainmap.wustl.edu/caret, which basically 404s me... I think the upstream homepage moved. Maybe to http://brainvis.wustl.edu/wiki/index.php/Caret:About I suggest updating the Homepage: field. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#518688: caret: debian/copyright file includes a confusing part
Hi, On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 12:07:36AM +0100, Francesco Poli (t1000) wrote: Package: caret Version: 5.6.1~dfsg.1-1 Severity: normal Hi! Thanks for packaging this interesting piece of software for Debian! I took a look at the debian/copyright file and I am confused by the Files: caret_uniformize/* section. It says that those files are under the GNU GPL v2 or later, which is fine, of course. But then it quotes the following text: This source code has been derived from parts of the AFNI package (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov). The copyright statement refers to a 'README.copyright' file, which contains the licensing terms of AFNI. This file is not available in the Caret source distribution, but only included in the binary distribution as 'copyright.afni'. A verbatim copy is provided here. Note, that it also contains the licenses of all third-party code distributed with the AFNI package, but not within Caret. and then goes on quoting this README.copyright file entirely, including the full text of the GNU GPL v2 and of the OpenContent License v1.0 (that is http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml). Well, I find this to be confusing and misleading. First off, the full text of the GNU GPL v2 should not be included in a debian/copyright file, since it may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 (see Policy 12.5: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile) Moreover, I would like to not see the OpenContent License v1.0 text in the debian/copyright file of a package in main, since this license does *not* meet the DFSG, as explained in: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00046.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00048.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/11/msg00104.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/11/msg00111.html I understand that no file actually included in the caret package is distributed under the non-free terms of the OpenContent License v1.0, hence this does *not* seem to be a serious bug. However, I think that including the full text of an extraneous license in the debian/copyright file of a package is confusing and misleading. First of all, it is correct that the OpenContent license refers to AFNI and not to Caret. Therefore it is also correct that this might lead to confusion. However, the full quote of this file was added upon a request by ftp-masters, since they rejected the package previously, because of this missing piece of information. I hope the debian/copyright file can be changed into a less confusing form. I guess it would be safe to add some additional notes about the respective part of debian/copyright, but keep the full quote itself. Please feel free to suggest an extension/rewording/rewrite. Alongside: | This source code has been derived from parts of the AFNI package | (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov). The copyright statement refers to a | 'README.copyright' file, which contains the licensing terms of AFNI. This | file is not available in the Caret source distribution, but only included in | the binary distribution as 'copyright.afni'. A verbatim copy is provided | here. Note, that it also contains the licenses of all third-party code | distributed with the AFNI package, but not within Caret. P.S.: the Homepage: field currently points to http://brainmap.wustl.edu/caret, which basically 404s me... I think the upstream homepage moved. Maybe to http://brainvis.wustl.edu/wiki/index.php/Caret:About I suggest updating the Homepage: field. That is also correct. The package spend quite a while in new and upstream changed lots of stuff ;-) I have a new package prepared that is basically waiting for #516756 to be resolved. Whenever that is done I'll upload. Thanks for your interest in Caret, Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
