¡Hola Vangelis! El 2014-06-02 a las 21:18 +0300, Vangelis Mouhtsis escribió: > Please review my new copyright file, (i'm not sure if the > other email arrived).
> Files: afaras/src/afarasview.cpp
> afaras/src/afarasview.h
...
Files accept wildcards, and the file is "processed" from top to bottom,
that way you can specify the licenses following a hierarchy. For example:
Files: *
# The license information about most of the files
Files: a/*
# License information of the files under a
Files: a/b/c
# License information specific for this file
For simon, licensecheck lists most files as GPL, note that GPL is a non
specific term for Debian, as we distinguish between GPL-2 GPL-2+ GPL-3 GPL-3+
and any other variants, so you still need to check the specifics in the source
files headers.
Also the COPYING file corresponds to the GPL-2 license, so I would say that
the files that have not Copyright statement or license information in them
(most of the files listed as UNKNOWN) can be covered by a
Files: *
License: GPL-2
or
Files: *
License: GPL-2+
> Copyright: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, Peter Grasch
> <peter.gra...@bedahr.org>
Listing different blocks that have different copyright holders with the
same license grows exponentialy till you have one block for each file,
that makes the copyright file too hard to maintain. I prefer to group the files
by license and list all the copyright holders for the group.
Also, I consider that listing all the years for a copyright holder only adds
noise, and I would replace it the list above with: 2008-2013,
> License: GPL
As mentioned above, GPL is not specific enough for Debian.
Also, for every License: foo there it should be a block showing the boiler
plate used for foo and pointers to read more about the license.
...
> License: UNKNOWN
There shouldn't be files with an UNKNOWN license, they should be covered by
the COPYING or by a general licensing statement made by upstream if they have
no information in them.
But, note that UNKNOWN as listed by licensecheck require manual inspection.
Why did you removed the blocks for the .cmake files?
Most .cmake files are licensed under a BSD-3-clause license, and licensecheck
ignores these files, so you need to add them manually.
--
"Whenever possible, steal code." -- Tom Duff
Saludos /\/\ /\ >< `/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
