Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi, On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Oliver Schmidt ol...@web.de wrote: The man pages could be generated with help2man, or they could point to the GNU info files. It seems that linuxdoc -B txt --man ... groff -man ... might be another option. Will check this once I get home. On the other hand, Oliver promised me to add something like a consecutive number if I really need it for packaging purposes. I can confirm this. Please do it then to confirm which commit should be considered a stable release. If possible update the file LICENSE as well to be zlib and GPL-2 as you previously noted. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi Oliver, On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Oliver Schmidt ol...@web.de wrote: Iff everything else is settled regarding packaging (incl. licensing) I'll reach out to the list members and ask for last-minute contribtions. If that phase is over I'll add a tag to the Git repo. OK, sounds good. If possible update the file LICENSE as well to be zlib and GPL-2 as you previously noted. There must be a misunderstanding! I made a statement about _my_ contributions to cc65. I don't know who else has contributed to cc65 before I started to maintain the upstream repo. In fact I personally don't see how an exhaustive list of contributors can be archived. And without acknowledgement from _all_ contributors I don't see me changing _anything_ regarding the file LICENSE. Then the first step is to ask everyone you (we?) know to allow the relicensing of the whole cc65. This means all contributors of the code who ever changed something in it, even a single character. Do others like John R. Dunning or Ullrich von Bassewitz may have a full commit history and/or list of the contributors over the years? I'm _not_ a lawyer, but do we really need to reach everyone? Would it be enough to ask only people who added their copyright messages in the top of the files? I don't know if others can be counted as they left the copyright to the actual source maintainer or not. At least I don't see any sign that they claim any copyright of their contributions. The LICENSE file states only the previous two coders have the copyright. Not a single sentence mentions others who may have contributed to the source. Until this license issue is not solved, cc65 remains non-free from the Debian point of view. :( Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi Laszlo, On the other hand, Oliver promised me to add something like a consecutive number if I really need it for packaging purposes. I can confirm this. Please do it then to confirm which commit should be considered a stable release. Iff everything else is settled regarding packaging (incl. licensing) I'll reach out to the list members and ask for last-minute contribtions. If that phase is over I'll add a tag to the Git repo. If possible update the file LICENSE as well to be zlib and GPL-2 as you previously noted. There must be a misunderstanding! I made a statement about _my_ contributions to cc65. I don't know who else has contributed to cc65 before I started to maintain the upstream repo. In fact I personally don't see how an exhaustive list of contributors can be archived. And without acknowledgement from _all_ contributors I don't see me changing _anything_ regarding the file LICENSE. Regards, Oliver
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
On 05/05/2015 03:08 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: Then the first step is to ask everyone you (we?) know to allow the relicensing of the whole cc65. This means all contributors of the code who ever changed something in it, even a single character. Do others like John R. Dunning or Ullrich von Bassewitz may have a full commit history and/or list of the contributors over the years? You can get a list: $ git clone g...@github.com:cc65/cc65.git $ cd cc65 $ git log --all --format='%aN %cE' | sort -u I'm _not_ a lawyer, but do we really need to reach everyone? Would it be enough to ask only people who added their copyright messages in the top of the files? I don't know if others can be counted as they left the copyright to the actual source maintainer or not. Exactly my point. If you _claim_ to have made a contribution but you are credited nowhere and also don't show up in the commit history, then there is absolute no way for you to prove your authorship and hence it's pretty safe to just ask who is actually listed. At least I don't see any sign that they claim any copyright of their contributions. The LICENSE file states only the previous two coders have the copyright. At least in Germany, you automatically obtain the copyright you made for any contribution you made. So, in order to be absolutely super correct, everyone would need to be added to the LICENSE file even now as otherwise the LICENSE file would be incomplete and any of the contributors could actually complain. On the other hand, I don't think that there is anyone who insists on their copyrights without having asked for their names to be added to the LICENSE file. So, again. Let's just ask everyone who has committed code according to the above git log. And if we are really super-insisting on the correctness, we can delay the whole process even more by asking debian-legal again. But I don't think that anyone would want this. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
On 05/05/2015 02:17 PM, Oliver Schmidt wrote: I made a statement about _my_ contributions to cc65. I don't know who else has contributed to cc65 before I started to maintain the upstream repo. In fact I personally don't see how an exhaustive list of contributors can be archived. And without acknowledgement from _all_ contributors I don't see me changing _anything_ regarding the file LICENSE. Uhm, I think you are taking this way too serious. I don't think that anyone who ever contributed to cc65 besides Ullrich and John would not agree to have the code fully covered under the Zlib license. And most of the code was rewritten anyway according to Ullrich von Bassewitz and all of what was rewritten was licensed under the Zlib. If you are refusing to change the LICENSE file accordingly, we won't be able to continue with the packaging process. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi Adrian, Who if not Ullrich is authoritative to give such a statement regarding the license of the code. He wrote - by far - the largest portions of the code and supervised all contributions. I am pretty sure we can take his word on that. Full ACK ! Regards, Oliver
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi Laszlo, $ git clone g...@github.com:cc65/cc65.git $ cd cc65 $ git log --all --format='%aN %cE' | sort -u This is not authoritative. For example someone could sent an email to Ullrich with his/her patch. I know for sure that this was in fact done. When Ullrich started with cc65 he used CVS and he was the only one to commit. Only after the switch to SVN there was a group of contributors allowed to commit themselves. As it was not commited by the contributor but Ullrich, the person's identity is lost. At least sometimes Ullich mentioned the name of the author of the patch in the commit log. I'd say only he knows if he did it always. But well, the commit log can be a good starting point. May you Oliver handle this? This seems to be yet another misunderstanding :-( I don't see myself in the driver seat of this overall effort. If I would then the license question would probably be already solved since years ;-) Regards, Oliver
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
On 05/05/2015 03:52 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: This is not authoritative. For example someone could sent an email to Ullrich with his/her patch. As it was not commited by the contributor but Ullrich, the person's identity is lost. Well, then Ullrich didn't use the version control system he was using properly. At least in git, you always differentiate between committer and author and therefore the authorship is always kept. But well, the commit log can be a good starting point. May you Oliver handle this? Oliver asked me do it instead but he made a good suggestion to look at the file cc65-2.13.3/doc/CREDITS from ftp://ftp.musoftware.de/pub/uz/cc65/cc65-sources-2.13.3.tar.bz2. Furthermore, there is a file packages/debian/copyright with the following interesting statement: =snip= This is the original compiler copyright: -- -*- Mode: Text -*- This is the copyright notice for RA65, LINK65, LIBR65, and other Atari 8-bit programs. Said programs are Copyright 1989, by John R. Dunning. All rights reserved, with the following exceptions: Anyone may copy or redistribute these programs, provided that: 1: You don't charge anything for the copy. It is permissable to charge a nominal fee for media, etc. =snip= In acknowledgment of this copyright, I will place my own changes to the compiler under the same copyright. However, since the library and all binutils (assembler, archiver, linker) are a complete rewrite, they are covered by another copyright: =snip= (text of the zlib license) I will try to contact John, maybe he is also willing to place his sources under a less restrictive copyright, after all these years:-) =snip= Thus, the code with the problematic license was always in the compiler part only. And for that, we can actually compare the current sources with the old sources: http://umich.edu/~archive/atari/8bit/Languages/Cc65/cc65-UNIX.tgz =snip= Additionally, I also have the following statement from Ullrich which I will translate from German: Der größte Teil der Software unterliegt bereits der zlib Lizenz. Größter Teil heisst, alle Tools mit Ausnahme des Compilers. Beim Compiler kann mein Code sowohl mit der alten (JRD) als auch mit der zlib Lizenz verteilt werden. Vom JRD Code übrig sind eigentlich nur noch ein paar Zeilen Code in den Dateien expr.c (bzw. expr.h), wegen denen der Compiler die alte Lizenz hat. Am einfachsten wäre es, wenn John seinen Code bzw. den der Dateien expr1.c, expr2.c und expr3.c die zlib stellt. Falls er das nicht will kann man den Code wahlweise gemischt lizensieren, oder sich tatsächlich die Mühe machen, den Rest alten Codes von John rauszuwerfen. =snip= Translation: The largest portion of the code is already licensed under the Zlib license. Largest portion means all tools with the exception of the compiler. As for the compiler, my code can be distributed both under John's old license as well as the Zlib license. The remaining parts from John's code are basically just a few lines in the files expr.c (expr.h respectively) which is why the compiler was still distributed under John's original license. Thus, the simplest thing would be if John just relicensed all of his code or the code in the files expr1.c, expr2.c and expr3.c under the Zlib license. If John doesn't like that, it may also be possible to use a mixed license for the code or just get rid of John's code altogether. =snip= So, according to Ullrich, who has been maintaining and developing the cc65 code for the longest time, all that is needed to be able to redistribute the code under the free Zlib license is to ask John for permission to put his contributions under the Zlib license as well which is what I did and for which I received a positive answer from John. Who if not Ullrich is authoritative to give such a statement regarding the license of the code. He wrote - by far - the largest portions of the code and supervised all contributions. I am pretty sure we can take his word on that. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:27 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 05/05/2015 03:08 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: Then the first step is to ask everyone you (we?) know to allow the relicensing of the whole cc65. This means all contributors of the code who ever changed something in it, even a single character. Do others like John R. Dunning or Ullrich von Bassewitz may have a full commit history and/or list of the contributors over the years? You can get a list: $ git clone g...@github.com:cc65/cc65.git $ cd cc65 $ git log --all --format='%aN %cE' | sort -u This is not authoritative. For example someone could sent an email to Ullrich with his/her patch. As it was not commited by the contributor but Ullrich, the person's identity is lost. But well, the commit log can be a good starting point. May you Oliver handle this? Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
On 05/05/2015 08:42 PM, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote: Please note that Uz insisted on any contribution to cc65 to be licensed under zlib license. Thus, the only parts and contributions that might not fall under zlib are the parts that were there when Uz took over the project. Thus, it does not make any sense to contact any contributor to cc65 in the time frame when Uz was the head of the project, because there, we can be sure that any contribution actually *IS* zlib. Have a look at Patch Acceptance Policy on http://www.cc65.org/oldindex.php#Contribs Well, together with the statement I posted from Ullrich above plus John R Dunning's consent to license any parts that he wrote under the Zlib as well, I think we can say with 100% confidence now that it is justified to change the license for the whole source code to Zlib :). Good on Ullrich that he already made sure right from the beginning that all further contributions had to be done under the Zlib license and it's always just been the parts written by John R Dunning that were problematic but that is settled now. @Oliver: Do you agree that we are 100% safe on the license now? Or is there anything that you would still like to see answered? If you agree, please cut down the LICENSE [1] file to the lines 42 through 58. Feel free to re-add the CREDITS file if you like but given the above link Spiro provided we don't even need the CREDITS file to be safe regarding the license. However, it's always a good practice to include the file and putting it right into the root directory of the source tree. @Spiro: Thanks for the link above, that definitely settles it now without any question and makes any speculation unnecessary :). Adrian [1] https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/LICENSE -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
On 05/05/2015 08:18 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: Me too. ;) Took a quick check with a browser into your packaging. It's old style, but looks promising. I'm looking forward to see the first package when it's done. If you agree, I'd like to have a look at it as well before you go ahead and upload it. I have done lots of sponsoring and I've become pretty good in reviewing packages :). Me too. If you want to package it yourself, it's ok for me. If you want us to work together, it's ok, too. From my point of view, our cooperation in the past for VICE has worked good. Yup, I consider you a friend of mine. We can work together on this package and you or others may check my version[1] until the license issue is settled. Ah, that's great. I'll have a look right away :). Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi Adrian, @Oliver: Do you agree that we are 100% safe on the license now? Yes. If you agree, please cut down the LICENSE [1] file to the lines 42 through 58. Done: https://github.com/cc65/cc65/commit/aeb849257277a6b98542de8579697b81c6dd70e6 Regards, Oliver
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hello, * On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:54:19PM +0200 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 05/05/2015 02:17 PM, Oliver Schmidt wrote: Uhm, I think you are taking this way too serious. I don't think that anyone who ever contributed to cc65 besides Ullrich and John would not agree to have the code fully covered under the Zlib license. And most of the code was rewritten anyway according to Ullrich von Bassewitz and all of what was rewritten was licensed under the Zlib. Please note that Uz insisted on any contribution to cc65 to be licensed under zlib license. Thus, the only parts and contributions that might not fall under zlib are the parts that were there when Uz took over the project. Thus, it does not make any sense to contact any contributor to cc65 in the time frame when Uz was the head of the project, because there, we can be sure that any contribution actually *IS* zlib. Have a look at Patch Acceptance Policy on http://www.cc65.org/oldindex.php#Contribs Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi Spiro, On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Spiro Trikaliotis ml-cc65-git...@spiro.trikaliotis.net wrote: * On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:35:11PM +0200 László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: To be honest, I've already packaged it. Me too. ;) Took a quick check with a browser into your packaging. It's old style, but looks promising. Me too. If you want to package it yourself, it's ok for me. If you want us to work together, it's ok, too. From my point of view, our cooperation in the past for VICE has worked good. Yup, I consider you a friend of mine. We can work together on this package and you or others may check my version[1] until the license issue is settled. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS [1] dget -x http://www.barcikacomp.hu/gcs/cc65_0~20150503-1.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hello Adrian, * On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:27:56PM +0200 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 05/05/2015 03:52 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: This is not authoritative. For example someone could sent an email to Ullrich with his/her patch. As it was not commited by the contributor but Ullrich, the person's identity is lost. Well, then Ullrich didn't use the version control system he was using properly. At least in git, you always differentiate between committer and author and therefore the authorship is always kept. Note that Uz worked with (private!) CVS for the most time. Later, he changed over to SVN. It was me who converted the SVN into GIT, which was then user by Oliver as his base. ;) Thus, he did what he could do with the tool he had at hand. Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:06 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote: On 05/05/2015 08:18 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: Yup, I consider you a friend of mine. We can work together on this package and you or others may check my version[1] until the license issue is settled. Ah, that's great. I'll have a look right away :). Feel free to report any issue you may found. What I know is that I should credit John R. Dunning as well in the copyright. Then ask Spiro which email address of his should be used in the package. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi, The man pages could be generated with help2man, or they could point to the GNU info files. It seems that linuxdoc -B txt --man ... groff -man ... might be another option. As far as I remember Ullrich did that in former times. If someone tests it I'd be willing to add it to https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/doc/Makefile On the other hand, Oliver promised me to add something like a consecutive number if I really need it for packaging purposes. I can confirm this. Regards, Oliver
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hi all related people, To be honest, I've already packaged it. I've two problems above the license issue. None of the tools have neither a manpage nor a HTML documentation. Then there's no tag or any version number in the GitHub repository. Anyway, I'd like to have it in Debian as I already have several Commodore (64) related tools in the archive. These include VICE, sidplayfp and crasm. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#714058: cc65 packaging
Hello László, * On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:35:11PM +0200 László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: To be honest, I've already packaged it. Me too. ;) https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:strik/cc65 I know, it does not hold to Debian's standards, but this is something I could work on if the package would have any chance to actually become an official Debian package. I've two problems above the license issue. None of the tools have neither a manpage nor a HTML documentation. I have a cc65-doc package which includes the documentation in html and GNU info format. See the debian.rules on the web page above how it is generated. The man pages could be generated with help2man, or they could point to the GNU info files. Then there's no tag or any version number in the GitHub repository. I use the git tag as version info. For example, the current version is 2.14.0.git.1430120390.0f1c3b0 This is not optimal, I know. On the other hand, Oliver promised me to add something like a consecutive number if I really need it for packaging purposes. Or we could use something like proposed by jberger here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/677436/how-to-get-the-git-commit-count $ git rev-list HEAD --count Anyway, I'd like to have it in Debian as I already have several Commodore (64) related tools in the archive. These include VICE, sidplayfp and crasm. Me too. If you want to package it yourself, it's ok for me. If you want us to work together, it's ok, too. From my point of view, our cooperation in the past for VICE has worked good. Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
