Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: 2. Apply the patch to Policy included below, which removes this license from the list of licenses we tell people to reference from /usr/share/common-licenses and explains why. This patch has now been merged for the next release. Noted, thanks. I assume we will have to wait some time before we can remove the license itself from base-files (i.e. until all packages stop referencing the file). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.1.10.1006141253420.11...@cantor.unex.es
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
On 14/06/10 12:55, Santiago Vila wrote: I assume we will have to wait some time before we can remove the license itself from base-files (i.e. until all packages stop referencing the file). Yes, that would be step 3 in Russ' plan. Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c160b99.4000...@debian.org
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes: Noted, thanks. I assume we will have to wait some time before we can remove the license itself from base-files (i.e. until all packages stop referencing the file). Yeah, the next release of Lintian will have a tag for it, so we'll be able to start tracking the progress on lintian.d.o. But I expect it will take a little while. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874oh5zgiu@windlord.stanford.edu
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: 2. Apply the patch to Policy included below, which removes this license from the list of licenses we tell people to reference from /usr/share/common-licenses and explains why. This patch has now been merged for the next release. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r5kc87ho@windlord.stanford.edu
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: However, the first change in this bug is still relevant, and there doesn't appear to be another open bug on this issue. The current BSD license in common-licenses is not particularly useful since it specifically lists the University of California as the copyright holder and therefore can only be used to refer to UC-licensed code, not anything else under the same license. That specific copyright holder should probably either be removed or the whole license should be removed from common-licenses. My preference would be the latter, but we'd first need to find any packages that refer to the file and add the license text to the packages in question. If someone would tackle that research, that would be very helpful. I have now, much later, done that research, or at least part of it. 1,556 packages in Debian currently reference /usr/share/doc/common-licenses/BSD. While I'm sure many of those actually contain UC-licensed material, I suspect many of them are in error. However, that's 1,556 packages that would be made instantly buggy by removing the license. I therefore propose proceeding as follows: 1. Add a new Lintian warning asking people to stop using the common-licenses link for the BSD license and instead include the license directly in debian/copyright. As we've discussed in the past, this is the best course of action for short and simple licenses, particularly ones that can have some wording difference. The BSD license isn't long enough to warrant the extra indirection. The warning can also mention that the license isn't appropriate for code that isn't owned by the University of California. 2. Apply the patch to Policy included below, which removes this license from the list of licenses we tell people to reference from /usr/share/common-licenses and explains why. 3. Based on the Lintian results, watch the count of packages using this reference and, if it gets low enough, clean up the rest with a mass bug filing and then drop the file from base-files. Any further discussion? I'm also looking for seconds for the Policy patch below: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 87b9795..02d6f8d 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -9227,14 +9227,13 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY /p p - Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Apache - license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL - (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the - GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding - files under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote + Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the + Artistic license, the GNU GPL (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL + (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) + should refer to the corresponding files + under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote p In particular, - file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2/file, @@ -9244,7 +9243,14 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY file/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2/file, and file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.3/file - respectively. + respectively. The University of California BSD license is + also included in packagebase-files/package as + file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, but given the + brevity of this license, its specificity to code whose + copyright is held by the Regents of the Univesrity of + California, and the frequency of minor wording changes, its + text should be included in the copyright file rather than + referencing this file. /p /footnote rather than quoting them in the copyright file. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bpbiodcs@windlord.stanford.edu
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
On 10/06/10 22:13, Russ Allbery wrote: I therefore propose proceeding as follows: 1. Add a new Lintian warning asking people to stop using the common-licenses link for the BSD license and instead include the license directly in debian/copyright. As we've discussed in the past, this is the best course of action for short and simple licenses, particularly ones that can have some wording difference. The BSD license isn't long enough to warrant the extra indirection. The warning can also mention that the license isn't appropriate for code that isn't owned by the University of California. 2. Apply the patch to Policy included below, which removes this license from the list of licenses we tell people to reference from /usr/share/common-licenses and explains why. 3. Based on the Lintian results, watch the count of packages using this reference and, if it gets low enough, clean up the rest with a mass bug filing and then drop the file from base-files. That sounds good to me. Any further discussion? I'm also looking for seconds for the Policy patch below: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 87b9795..02d6f8d 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -9227,14 +9227,13 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY /p p - Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Apache - license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL - (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the - GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding - files under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote + Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the + Artistic license, the GNU GPL (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL + (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) + should refer to the corresponding files + under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote p In particular, - file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2/file, @@ -9244,7 +9243,14 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY file/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2/file, and file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.3/file - respectively. + respectively. The University of California BSD license is + also included in packagebase-files/package as + file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, but given the + brevity of this license, its specificity to code whose + copyright is held by the Regents of the Univesrity of + California, and the frequency of minor wording changes, its + text should be included in the copyright file rather than + referencing this file. /p /footnote rather than quoting them in the copyright file. Seconded. Cheers, Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:13:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Any further discussion? Sounds logcial to me. I'm also looking for seconds for the Policy patch below: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 87b9795..02d6f8d 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -9227,14 +9227,13 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY /p p - Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Apache - license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL - (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the - GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding - files under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote + Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the + Artistic license, the GNU GPL (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL + (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) + should refer to the corresponding files + under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote p In particular, - file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2/file, @@ -9244,7 +9243,14 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY file/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2/file, and file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.3/file - respectively. + respectively. The University of California BSD license is + also included in packagebase-files/package as + file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, but given the + brevity of this license, its specificity to code whose + copyright is held by the Regents of the Univesrity of + California, and the frequency of minor wording changes, its + text should be included in the copyright file rather than + referencing this file. /p /footnote rather than quoting them in the copyright file. Seconded. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Queen: You Don't Fool Me signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org, 2010-06-10, 13:13: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 87b9795..02d6f8d 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -9227,14 +9227,13 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY /p p - Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Apache - license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL - (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the - GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding - files under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote + Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the + Artistic license, the GNU GPL (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL + (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) + should refer to the corresponding files + under file/usr/share/common-licenses/file,footnote p In particular, - file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2/file, @@ -9244,7 +9243,14 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY file/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3/file, file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2/file, and file/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.3/file - respectively. + respectively. The University of California BSD license is + also included in packagebase-files/package as + file/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD/file, but given the + brevity of this license, its specificity to code whose + copyright is held by the Regents of the Univesrity of + California, and the frequency of minor wording changes, its + text should be included in the copyright file rather than + referencing this file. /p /footnote rather than quoting them in the copyright file. Seconded. -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: package debian-policy Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy user [EMAIL PROTECTED] Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]). retitle 284340 Remove reference to UC in BSD license or remove license Bug#284340: base-files: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license and add other licenses Changed Bug title to `Remove reference to UC in BSD license or remove license' from `base-files: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license and add other licenses'. usertag 284340 = normative discussion Bug#284340: Remove reference to UC in BSD license or remove license Usertags were: normative. Usertags are now: normative discussion. tags 284340 -wontfix Bug#284340: Remove reference to UC in BSD license or remove license Tags were: wontfix Tags removed: wontfix thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#284340: Please remove reference to UC in BSD license
package debian-policy user [EMAIL PROTECTED] retitle 284340 Remove reference to UC in BSD license or remove license usertag 284340 = normative discussion tags 284340 -wontfix thanks This bug proposed two changes: first, remove the specific reference to the University of California from the BSD license in common-licenses, and second, add several other similar licenses (two-clause BSD, Expat, and X11). I'm rejecting the second change on the grounds recently discussed on the debian-policy list in several other bugs about license files, namely that the purpose of the common-licenses directory is to save archive space for long and complex licenses and these licenses are all short and simple to include in debian/copyright. Furthermore, these licenses frequently have slightly different wording or embed different copyright holder names in the license text, meaning that correctly referring to a shared central copy is tricky and won't be possible for as many packages as it might first appear. However, the first change in this bug is still relevant, and there doesn't appear to be another open bug on this issue. The current BSD license in common-licenses is not particularly useful since it specifically lists the University of California as the copyright holder and therefore can only be used to refer to UC-licensed code, not anything else under the same license. That specific copyright holder should probably either be removed or the whole license should be removed from common-licenses. My preference would be the latter, but we'd first need to find any packages that refer to the file and add the license text to the packages in question. If someone would tackle that research, that would be very helpful. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
