Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Hi Sebastiaan, On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 23:57 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a or later on their GPL option? I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the licenses as published by the FSF which contain the or later part. Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT projects contain or (at your option) any later version. No I disagee. You cannot refer to the published complete license text here; LICENSE.GPL begins with Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. so one can be sure that it is not modified for the purpose to have the or later option. As there is no no-later veision of the license file, we have to read on. Later in the license the or-later-option is introduced: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The files in question do *NOT* have the any later version specified, so the AND evaluated to false and it does not apply. That means you have only GPL-3 as option. As licenses are bound to the specific artifact, it is very dangerous to say other packages using QT do it this way. Looking at http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtwidgets-richtext-textedit-textedit-cpp.html (looks like the source of the file), and on http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html I don't see any or later option too. (However, this would be only an addtional, non-authoritive datapoint anyway, as the only thing that counts is the text in the artifact) Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable. I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the commercial license. Thats not the point. The message is There is a third license option available which are individually negotiated. See the URL for details or contact us Details on the license are not necessary and the don't impact the use under the other license options. The other QT software I looked at also don't specify the commercial license, have you found any that do and if so how do they handle this issue? At least qat4-x11 and pulseview. They just have the license header in d/copyright. But IMHO other packagaes are a hint, not necessarily always correct. (This could be also a question for d-legal.) http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/q/qt4-x11/unstable_copyright http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/pulseview/unstable_copyright Kind Regards, Bas -- tobi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1408344754.14939.31.ca...@edoras.loewenhoehle.ip
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Od: Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebas...@xs4all.nl I think the WTFPL short name should keep the version number, WTFPL-2 was better IMHO. The text of the QT license exception is still missing the LGPL exception text. I suggest at least the changes included in the attached patch. Since the license text of the QT commercial license is not known, and appears to be specific to each commercial licensee (because you need to contact them first, it's likely part of the contract negotiation), I would drop the QT_COMMERICAL license option too and just use: License: GPL-3.0+ or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 Done and uploaded to debian mentors. regards Jaromir Mikes
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 21:11 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Ok, review complete. When below things are fixed, I will upload it. -- tobi d/copyright: (beside the already discussed things) - Files-Excluded not needed - Whats the copyright of the gpx examples? - src/cursors not documented d/dirs not needed, you can remove it. wrap-and-sort (please over the complete directory. Just run it from the root package directory.) e.g d/control will look much better afterwards) d/rules: - please remove the last line (the commented line gunzuip ... ) - the mv is not required: You can use the -O option of wget; also not that get-orig-source should get the tarball and leaves it in the current directory. (Policy 4.9), so the ../ in the mv is not right. d/clean + d/rules - please clean the generated icons in e.g d/clean and rebuild them during build. (there is such a nice script for doing this in the src :)) General rule: If there is a source, use it during build. E.g also compass.png should be regenerated. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On 08/18/2014 08:52 AM, Tobias Frost wrote: Hi Sebastiaan, On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 23:57 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a or later on their GPL option? I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the licenses as published by the FSF which contain the or later part. Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT projects contain or (at your option) any later version. No I disagee. You cannot refer to the published complete license text here; LICENSE.GPL begins with Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. so one can be sure that it is not modified for the purpose to have the or later option. As there is no no-later veision of the license file, we have to read on. Later in the license the or-later-option is introduced: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The files in question do *NOT* have the any later version specified, so the AND evaluated to false and it does not apply. That means you have only GPL-3 as option. As licenses are bound to the specific artifact, it is very dangerous to say other packages using QT do it this way. Looking at http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtwidgets-richtext-textedit-textedit-cpp.html (looks like the source of the file), and on http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html I don't see any or later option too. (However, this would be only an addtional, non-authoritive datapoint anyway, as the only thing that counts is the text in the artifact) The license header in the artifact doesn't state the or later, but refers to the license as published by the FSF which does include it: ** GNU Lesser General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser ** General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements ** will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. ** ** In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional ** rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception ** version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. ** ** GNU General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU ** General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be ** met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. The full license text is not included in the header, but is deferred to the license as published by the FSF. Since the licenses as published by the FSF include or (at your option) any later version GPL-3+ applies. QT projects include the LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files as referred to in the header, but these are not included in qmapshack as they are in QT projects. The LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files included in QT projects are verbatim copies of the licenses as published by the FSF which includes or (at your option) any later version. The QT code included in qmapshack is taken from the QT examples, and the license applied to that include or (at your option) any later version: https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/demos-textedit-textedit-cpp.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/licensing.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/gpl.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/lgpl.html Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable. I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the commercial license. Thats not the point. The message is There is a third license option available which are individually negotiated. See the URL for details or contact us Details on the license are not necessary and the don't impact the use under the other license options. Leaving out the commercial licensing option is not ideal indeed. I suggest to include the license header in the d/copyright as a comment and keep the individual license specifications as they are now: Files: src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.cpp
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On 08/18/2014 14:11, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: The license header in the artifact doesn't state the or later, but refers to the license as published by the FSF which does include it: [...] The full license text is not included in the header, but is deferred to the license as published by the FSF. Since the licenses as published by the FSF include or (at your option) any later version GPL-3+ applies. No, the only place where later is mentioned in the GPL-3 is section 14 (Revised Versions of this License) which only applies when the program explicitly states that later versions may be used. The word later also appear in the How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs part of the GPL, but that just explains how authors can use the license, it's not part of the GPL terms and condition. There's even a END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS marker above it. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f1f19f.8030...@debian.org
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 14:11 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/18/2014 08:52 AM, Tobias Frost wrote: Hi Sebastiaan, On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 23:57 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a or later on their GPL option? I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the licenses as published by the FSF which contain the or later part. Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT projects contain or (at your option) any later version. No I disagee. You cannot refer to the published complete license text here; LICENSE.GPL begins with Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. so one can be sure that it is not modified for the purpose to have the or later option. As there is no no-later veision of the license file, we have to read on. Later in the license the or-later-option is introduced: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The files in question do *NOT* have the any later version specified, so the AND evaluated to false and it does not apply. That means you have only GPL-3 as option. As licenses are bound to the specific artifact, it is very dangerous to say other packages using QT do it this way. Looking at http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtwidgets-richtext-textedit-textedit-cpp.html (looks like the source of the file), and on http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html I don't see any or later option too. (However, this would be only an addtional, non-authoritive datapoint anyway, as the only thing that counts is the text in the artifact) The license header in the artifact doesn't state the or later, but refers to the license as published by the FSF which does include it: ** GNU Lesser General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser ** General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements ** will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. ** ** In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional ** rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception ** version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. ** ** GNU General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU ** General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be ** met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. The full license text is not included in the header, but is deferred to the license as published by the FSF. Since the licenses as published by the FSF include or (at your option) any later version GPL-3+ applies. QT projects include the LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files as referred to in the header, but these are not included in qmapshack as they are in QT projects. The LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files included in QT projects are verbatim copies of the licenses as published by the FSF which includes or (at your option) any later version. The QT code included in qmapshack is taken from the QT examples, and the license applied to that include or (at your option) any later version: https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/demos-textedit-textedit-cpp.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/licensing.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/gpl.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/lgpl.html The artefact fails to state the option explictly. As Ansgar already replied, this is necessary to apply the or later option. Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable. I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the commercial license. Thats not the point. The message is There is a third license option available which are individually negotiated. See the URL for details or contact us Details on the license are not necessary and the don't impact the use under
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 09:02 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Od: Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebas...@xs4all.nl I think the WTFPL short name should keep the version number, WTFPL-2 was better IMHO. The text of the QT license exception is still missing the LGPL exception text. I suggest at least the changes included in the attached patch. Since the license text of the QT commercial license is not known, and appears to be specific to each commercial licensee (because you need to contact them first, it's likely part of the contract negotiation), I would drop the QT_COMMERICAL license option too and just use: License: GPL-3.0+ or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 Done and uploaded to debian mentors. Well, there were lots of discussion regarding this... So if you wonder what to use now, I (still) think that you should use this: (or like; I didn't make it beautiful, like identation... The Exception license is taken from here: https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/raw/bfa0be8a1bf68200f1ba9deff4a9215ee066:LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt) License: QT-Commercial or GPL-3.0 or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 License: QT-Commercial Commercial License Usage Licensees holding valid commercial Qt licenses may use this file in accordance with the commercial license agreement provided with the Software or, alternatively, in accordance with the terms contained in a written agreement between you and Digia. For licensing terms and conditions see http://qt.digia.com/licensing. For further information use the contact form at http://qt.digia.com/contact-us. License: LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. . In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. . Digia Qt LGPL Exception version 1.1 As an additional permission to the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1, the object code form of a work that uses the Library may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may distribute such object code under terms of your choice, provided that: (i) the header files of the Library have not been modified; and (ii) the incorporated material is limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts, accessors, macros, inline functions and templates; and (iii) you comply with the terms of Section 6 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1. . Moreover, you may apply this exception to a modified version of the Library, provided that such modification does not involve copying material from the Library into the modified Library's header files unless such material is limited to (i) numerical parameters; (ii) data structure layouts; (iii) accessors; and (iv) small macros, templates and inline functions of five lines or less in length. . Furthermore, you are not required to apply this additional permission to a modified version of the Library. -- tobi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Od: Tobias Frost t...@debian.org Hello Tobias, thank you for reviewing! Ok, review complete. When below things are fixed, I will upload it. -- tobi d/copyright: (beside the already discussed things) - Files-Excluded not needed - Whats the copyright of the gpx examples? - src/cursors not documented d/dirs not needed, you can remove it. wrap-and-sort (please over the complete directory. Just run it from the root package directory.) e.g d/control will look much better afterwards) d/rules: - please remove the last line (the commented line gunzuip ... ) - the mv is not required: You can use the -O option of wget; also not that get-orig-source should get the tarball and leaves it in the current directory. (Policy 4.9), so the ../ in the mv is not right. d/clean + d/rules - please clean the generated icons in e.g d/clean and rebuild them during build. (there is such a nice script for doing this in the src :)) General rule: If there is a source, use it during build. E.g also compass.png should be regenerated. Except copyright and license for gpx examples everything mentioned here has been fixed. Copyright and license for gpx examples will be fixed with next upstream release. Copyright file has been already added to upstream repo. Until next release will be published maybe you can check in packaging repo if all fixes has been done in right way. http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/qmapshack.git best regards mira
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Hello, I just uploaded new upstream version of qmapshack 0.3.0 to debian mentors. This package fixing all previous issues, I would be grateful for reviewing. http://mentors.debian.net/package/qmapshack (I am not regenerating png icons during the build time as package don't need to repacked anymore.) best regards Jaromir Mikes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/y29.7utm.6anm9abhv7x.1jy...@seznam.cz
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On 08/17/2014 06:35 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: I just uploaded new upstream version of qmapshack 0.3.0 to debian mentors. This package fixing all previous issues, I would be grateful for reviewing. Regarding the copyright file I suggest to use the SPDX license shortnames as much as possible. http://spdx.org/licenses/ So instead of BSD (3 clause) as used by licensecheck, use BSD-3-Clause instead. And use the minor numbers for the GPL licenses, so GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3+. The copyright-format 1.0 specifies that license names cannot contain spaces (unless they define exceptions), using the SPDX license names prevents that. https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-syntax There is also an additional space after the Source field that should be removed. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f0e5ef.7090...@xs4all.nl
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Od: Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebas...@xs4all.nl On 08/17/2014 06:35 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: I just uploaded new upstream version of qmapshack 0.3.0 to debian mentors. This package fixing all previous issues, I would be grateful for reviewing. Regarding the copyright file I suggest to use the SPDX license shortnames as much as possible. http://spdx.org/licenses/ So instead of BSD (3 clause) as used by licensecheck, use BSD-3-Clause instead. And use the minor numbers for the GPL licenses, so GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3+. The copyright-format 1.0 specifies that license names cannot contain spaces (unless they define exceptions), using the SPDX license names prevents that. https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license- syntax There is also an additional space after the Source field that should be removed. Thank you Sebastaan for quick feedback. I will fix that soon. (today) Can you please advice what to do with LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 license? Files: src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.cpp src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.h best regards mira
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On 08/17/2014 07:46 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Can you please advice what to do with LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 license? The relevant documention in the copyright-format 1.0 states: An exception or clarification to a license is signalled in plain text, by appending /with keywords exception/ to the short name. This document provides a list of keywords that must be used when referring to the most frequent exceptions. When exceptions other than these are in effect that modify a common license by granting additional permissions, you may use an arbitrary keyword not taken from the below list of keywords. When a license differs from a common license because of added restrictions rather than because of added permissions, a distinct short name should be used instead of with keywords exception. Only one exception may be specified for each license within a given license specification. If more than one exception applies to a single license, an arbitrary short name indicating that combination of multiple exceptions must be used instead. https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification The current short name doesn't conform to the with keyword exception syntax, but seems in common use for QT software. I wouldn't worry too much about the short name syntax in this case, and use the same license section as qtmultimedia-opensource-src for example: http://sources.debian.net/src/qtmultimedia-opensource-src/5.3.1-4/debian/copyright/#L72 Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f0f409.6020...@xs4all.nl
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 19:27 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/17/2014 06:35 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: I just uploaded new upstream version of qmapshack 0.3.0 to debian mentors. This package fixing all previous issues, I would be grateful for reviewing. Regarding the copyright file I suggest to use the SPDX license shortnames as much as possible. http://spdx.org/licenses/ So instead of BSD (3 clause) as used by licensecheck, use BSD-3-Clause instead. And use the minor numbers for the GPL licenses, so GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3+. The copyright-format 1.0 specifies that license names cannot contain spaces (unless they define exceptions), using the SPDX license names prevents that. https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-syntax Yes, it should be BSD-3-Clause. Its sufficient to write GPL-3+, as the copyright-format 1.0 writes: For SPDX compatibility, versions with trailing dot-zeroes are considered to be equivalent to versions without (e.g., 2.0.0 is considered equal to 2.0 and 2). (Also used in the examples) There is also an additional space after the Source field that should be removed. Jaromír, can you fix those tho minor things and maybe run wrap-and-sort over it. Then ping me... If you want, uploda it to mentors, but I can also work from the git repository) I'll take a look at the package tomorrow morning then... Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1408299643.30119.13.ca...@edoras.loewenhoehle.ip
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 19:46 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Can you please advice what to do with LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 license? Files: src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.cpp src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.h I'd write: License: QT_COMMERICIAL or GPL-3 or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 (as you have the option to choose one of the three. The execption is like the OpenSSL exception in the examples of the link[1]) And then of course matching License paragraphs for the new licenses. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-syntax best regards mira -- tobi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Hello, thank you all for quick responces! I've just uploaded fixed version of qmapshack 0.3.0 to debian mentors. Copyright file now follow SPDX license shortnames. wrap-and-sort -a -s has been run over control and copyright file http://mentors.debian.net/package/qmapshack best regards Jaromir Mikes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/yvu.7uti.3wicfovnkwx.1jy...@seznam.cz
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Thanks for incorporating the feedback. I think the WTFPL short name should keep the version number, WTFPL-2 was better IMHO. The text of the QT license exception is still missing the LGPL exception text. I suggest at least the changes included in the attached patch. Since the license text of the QT commercial license is not known, and appears to be specific to each commercial licensee (because you need to contact them first, it's likely part of the contract negotiation), I would drop the QT_COMMERICAL license option too and just use: License: GPL-3.0+ or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 This is what qtmultimedia-opensource-src uses too, except in reverse order. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright index 38a75bb..4b9dbcf 100644 --- a/debian/copyright +++ b/debian/copyright @@ -57,12 +57,12 @@ Files: src/animation/* Copyright: *No copyright* -License: WTFPL +License: WTFPL-2 Files: src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.cpp src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.h Copyright: 2012, Digia Plc and/or its subsidiary(-ies) -License: QT_COMMERICIAL or GPL-3 or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 +License: QT_COMMERICIAL or GPL-3.0+ or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 License: GPL-3.0+ This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Comment: You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License On Debian systems, the full text of the e Apache License, Version 2.0 can be found in the file `/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0'. -License: WTFPL +License: WTFPL-2 DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE . Version 2, December 2004 @@ -158,34 +158,41 @@ License: WTFPL . see http://www.wtfpl.net/. -License: QT_COMMERICIAL or GPL-3 or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 - $QT_BEGIN_LICENSE:LGPL$ - Commercial License Usage - Licensees holding valid commercial Qt licenses may use this file in - accordance with the commercial license agreement provided with the - Software or, alternatively, in accordance with the terms contained in - a written agreement between you and Digia. For licensing terms and - conditions see http://qt.digia.com/licensing. For further information - use the contact form at http://qt.digia.com/contact-us. - . - GNU Lesser General Public License Usage - Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser - General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software - Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the - packaging of this file. Please review the following information to - ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements - will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. +License: LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 + GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1: + This file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public + License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software Foundation and + appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the packaging of this + file. Please review the following information to ensure the GNU Lesser + General Public License version 2.1 requirements will be met: + http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. . In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional - rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception + rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. . - GNU General Public License Usage - Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU - General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software - Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the - packaging of this file. Please review the following information to - ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be - met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. - . - $QT_END_LICENSE$ + On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU Lesser General Public License + can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1`. + . + Digia Qt LGPL Exception version 1.1: + As an additional permission to the GNU Lesser General Public License version + 2.1, the object code form of a work that uses the Library may incorporate + material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may distribute + such object code under terms of your choice, provided that: + (i) the header files of the Library have not been modified; and + (ii) the incorporated material is limited to numerical parameters, data + structure layouts, accessors, macros, inline functions and + templates; and + (iii) you comply with the terms of Section 6 of the GNU Lesser General + Public License version 2.1. + . + Moreover, you may apply this exception to a
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a or later on their GPL option? I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the licenses as published by the FSF which contain the or later part. Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT projects contain or (at your option) any later version. Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable. I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the commercial license. The other QT software I looked at also don't specify the commercial license, have you found any that do and if so how do they handle this issue? Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f12537.2060...@xs4all.nl
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 14:19 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Od: Tobias Frost t...@debian.org (snip) I already managed to fix few issues in packaging repo: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/qmapshack.git Just briefly looked over it :) +1 Jut one thing (probably overlooked earlier): Any reason for your B-D against debhelper to be = 9.20120417 ? (Usually = 9 is sufficient) I also contacted upstream and informed about licensing problems. Things will be hopefully fixed with next upstream release. That means we need to wait for the next release? Biggest problem seems to be files src/animated, which are loading indicators from: http://ajaxload.info/; I can't find any contact on Yannick Croissant ( creator of pages) anywhere :( He is quite active in many projects, but nowhere is possible get email. Any advice on this? Yannick Croissant yannick.croissant #ät# gmail.com (found via his personal webpage - github profile - cloning one of his repositorires - git log) Thank you for reviewing. Welcome -- tobi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1407663720.4334.18.ca...@edoras.loewenhoehle.ip
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Od: Tobias Frost t...@debian.org Hello Tobias, On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 14:19 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: I already managed to fix few issues in packaging repo: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/qmapshack.git Just briefly looked over it :) +1 Jut one thing (probably overlooked earlier): Any reason for your B-D against debhelper to be = 9.20120417 ? (Usually = 9 is sufficient) Yes, there is a reason. You need this version of debhelper to get proper hardening with cmake https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668813 (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668813) I also contacted upstream and informed about licensing problems. Things will be hopefully fixed with next upstream release. That means we need to wait for the next release? Biggest problem seems to be files src/animated, which are loading indicators from: http://ajaxload.info/; I can't find any contact on Yannick Croissant ( creator of pages) anywhere :( He is quite active in many projects, but nowhere is possible get email. Any advice on this? Yannick Croissant yannick.croissant #ät# gmail.com (found via his personal webpage - github profile - cloning one of his repositorires - git log) Thank you! I am going to contact him. best regards Jaromir Mikes
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Od: Tobias Frost t...@debian.org Hello Tobias, - d/copyright is incomplete, there are at least 2 files not documented for the 3rdParty folder. (CGetOpt.cpp and main.cpp) (The html file in this dir is obviously generated by doxygen), the examples gpx are also not in the copyright file. There are two animated gifs in src/animated, which are Loading indicators are from: http://ajaxload.info/; (README in the file) The site says The gifs are totally free to use .. This unfortunatly does satisfy the DFSG rules, as for example the permissions for modifying, distribution are not included. (So maybe contact the ownder of ajaxload.info, because I assume that they are just not aware of the fine details of copyright law) Also there are three png without source in cursors .. one of the files refer to a Eric (string in file), so also here upstream needs to clearify copyright situation. (A image search on the net indicates that this cursors are public domain.. http://www.rw-designer.com/cursor-set/ proton) in src/icons/cache/COPYRIGHT I read All icons in this directory are from the Open Cache Manager project http://opencachemanage.sourceforge.net/; Checking that site tells me that that project has released files under Apache 2.0 Stopping here on checking copyright; you need to work through it again and probably also ask upstream to take a little bit more care to more carefully document licenses... The manpage is basically empty. Please extent it (and submit it upstream.) Nitpicks: As you are already repacking, - you could also remove all the pre-generated icons (as you should regenerate them at build-time from the svgs :)) - you could e.g xz as compression method, instead of gz. The other files in debian/ just need a wrap-and-sort run over it :) Can you check if the override of the autoinstall target could be done with an d/install file? I already managed to fix few issues in packaging repo: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/qmapshack.git I also contacted upstream and informed about licensing problems. Things will be hopefully fixed with next upstream release. Biggest problem seems to be files src/animated, which are loading indicators from: http://ajaxload.info/; I can't find any contact on Yannick Croissant ( creator of pages) anywhere : ( He is quite active in many projects, but nowhere is possible get email. Any advice on this? Thank you for reviewing. best regards Jaromir Mikes
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package qmapshack * Package name: qmapshack Version : 0.2.0+ds1-1 Upstream Author : Oliver Eichler oliver.eich...@gmx.de * URL : https://bitbucket.org/maproom/qmapshack/wiki/Home * License : GPL-3+ Section : science It builds those binary packages: qmapshack - GPS mapping (GeoTiff and vector) and GPSr management To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/qmapshack Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qmapshack/qmapshack_0.2.0+ds1-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com. Regards, Jaromír Mikeš -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1pl.7vdm.1ksd8husuze.1ju...@seznam.cz
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 17:11 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package qmapshack * Package name: qmapshack Version : 0.2.0+ds1-1 Upstream Author : Oliver Eichler oliver.eich...@gmx.de * URL : https://bitbucket.org/maproom/qmapshack/wiki/Home * License : GPL-3+ Section : science A. It builds those binary packages: qmapshack - GPS mapping (GeoTiff and vector) and GPSr management To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/qmapshack Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qmapshack/qmapshack_0.2.0+ds1-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com. Regards, Jaromír Mikeš Hi Mikeš, Thanks for packaging... However, I found a few things - d/copyright is incomplete, there are at least 2 files not documented for the 3rdParty folder. (CGetOpt.cpp and main.cpp) (The html file in this dir is obviously generated by doxygen), the examples gpx are also not in the copyright file. There are two animated gifs in src/animated, which are Loading indicators are from: http://ajaxload.info/; (README in the file) The site says The gifs are totally free to use .. This unfortunatly does satisfy the DFSG rules, as for example the permissions for modifying, distribution are not included. (So maybe contact the ownder of ajaxload.info, because I assume that they are just not aware of the fine details of copyright law) Also there are three png without source in cursors .. one of the files refer to a Eric (string in file), so also here upstream needs to clearify copyright situation. (A image search on the net indicates that this cursors are public domain.. http://www.rw-designer.com/cursor-set/proton) in src/icons/cache/COPYRIGHT I read All icons in this directory are from the Open Cache Manager project http://opencachemanage.sourceforge.net/; Checking that site tells me that that project has released files under Apache 2.0 Stopping here on checking copyright; you need to work through it again and probably also ask upstream to take a little bit more care to more carefully document licenses... The manpage is basically empty. Please extent it (and submit it upstream.) Nitpicks: As you are already repacking, - you could also remove all the pre-generated icons (as you should regenerate them at build-time from the svgs :)) - you could e.g xz as compression method, instead of gz. The other files in debian/ just need a wrap-and-sort run over it :) Can you check if the override of the autoinstall target could be done with an d/install file? -- tobi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
