Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
Am 01.12.2011 20:54, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: kudos and good relations are ways to pay respect too. But none of those pay respect specifically to the work upstream have put into carefully deciding on a specific licensing for the work. I don't think the puspose of debian/copyright is to show appreciation to upstream for wisely chosing this or that license. As Felipe already pointed out, it is a legal technical document. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On 11-12-02 at 09:51am, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 01.12.2011 20:54, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: kudos and good relations are ways to pay respect too. But none of those pay respect specifically to the work upstream have put into carefully deciding on a specific licensing for the work. I don't think the puspose of debian/copyright is to show appreciation to upstream for wisely chosing this or that license. Neither do I. I feel you are distorting what I write. As Felipe already pointed out, it is a legal technical document. Yes. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On Do, Dez 01, 2011 at 04:13:35 (CET), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 00:16, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't match any License: paragraph. I guess what you find strange is license names of this form: License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception That, I believe, is perfectly correct according to (latest drafts of) DEP-5. Please elaborate what you find strange about it. I do not know what is the current status of DEP5. What I found strange was the use of spaces (which are otherwise used as separator) in the license name. I'm not quite sure what is the dep5 way to deal with this. Most likely the exception should be moved into the license paragraph and the qualificators to the name (with X exception) removed. Yes, treating a license that contains an exception as a combined unique license is also allowed by DEP-5, but is less usable, as the underlying general license is then not machine-readable. it seems that all those problems only come from the autotools generated stuff, which is something where i have the feeling that it should not create problems at all. I don't see no problems. Perhaps the problem you are talking about is the one of being cumbersome to properly document all these varying licenses for the code that be use? The problem is spending too much time doing things that give little gain. Plus, they also make the document less useful by adding unneeded noise. The files are autogenerated, and they don't either end up or pollute the binaries. This means they are of little use in the copyright file (which is meant to document binary packages copyright). You are free to not use the code if you find that the burden of playing along with the rules of the game (which includes documenting licensing!) is higher than the benefit of using it. Documenting licensing is not part of the rules of the game. The copyright file is a necessity because the original documentation (contained in the source package) is not shipped in the binary files, so we condense that into a single file shipped in every package. There is no point in documenting stuff that does not end up in the binary packages. i'm therefore wondering, what is the best way to deal with autotools generated files in general. You can (with your Debian hat on, I am not talking about upstream here) repackage the source to *not* include the autogenerated files as part of Debian distributed sources. IF the files truly are only autogenerated at the target build host you need not document it - but all that we ship in sources should be documented, whether or not it is used for the production of binary packages! I disagree with the above. If something does not end up in the binaries, it doesn't need to be documented in the copyright file. so i asked at #debian-mentors (see end of this mail), with the conclusion (as i read it), that it might probably be best to leave out generated files from debian/copyright alltogether. I read that not as being best but being tolerated. The big unspoken truth is that Debian has a long way to go to properly document all licensing - and autotools is not the best place to start, as it is much work with little gain (covers little if any new licensing or authors). would this be acceptable? for you? what do other think? Acceptable, yes. But ripping out proper documentation as you just did now is completely backwards IMO! It is unnecessary noise when trying to determine the licensing of things in the binaries we ship, which is why I said it should be removed. Felipe, Thank you very much for stating your opinion such clearly. I fully concur with your view on DEP-5! Cheers, Reinhard -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
Am 01.12.2011 08:20, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: Thank you very much for stating your opinion such clearly. I fully concur with your view on DEP-5! While I also agree with your opinion with regard to documenting the licensing of auto-generated files (and most parts of the GNU auto* build system, FWIW) I have to disagree with your statement that code which does not end up in binaries does not have to get documented in debian/copyright. In my understanding, said file is to document the license and copyright situation of the packages that Debian offers - but Debian does also offer the source package, it is not limited to binary packages! If your source ships a convenience copy of a library which you do not link against - which you maybe do not even compile, because you build against the system library - then of course the license of this code has to end up in debian/copyright. - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On Do, Dez 01, 2011 at 09:57:44 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 01.12.2011 08:20, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: Thank you very much for stating your opinion such clearly. I fully concur with your view on DEP-5! While I also agree with your opinion with regard to documenting the licensing of auto-generated files (and most parts of the GNU auto* build system, FWIW) I have to disagree with your statement that code which does not end up in binaries does not have to get documented in debian/copyright. In my understanding, said file is to document the license and copyright situation of the packages that Debian offers - but Debian does also offer the source package, it is not limited to binary packages! If your source ships a convenience copy of a library which you do not link against - which you maybe do not even compile, because you build against the system library - then of course the license of this code has to end up in debian/copyright. I hear this opinion at many places, but it does not match my understanding of Debian Policy (cf. sections §2.3, §12.5). The very first sentence reads like this: ,[ Debian Policy §2.3 / §12.5 | Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright | information and distribution license in the file | /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. This file must neither be compressed | nor be a symbolic link. ` While I understand that you are trying to extend the rules to source packages, the phrasing implies to me that policy does not talk about source packages here at all. And thinking more about it, source packages do already have proper copyright information in the source package, mostly in some COPYING or README file or in the respective sources. So legally, there is no necessity to collect and condense all this information in a single file debian/copyright. Doing so may be a great service for people that work on the source packages, right, but I really don't think this is currently a requirement, nor should maintainers be forced to do so. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
Am 01.12.2011 10:18, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: And thinking more about it, source packages do already have proper copyright information in the source package, mostly in some COPYING or README file or in the respective sources. So legally, there is no necessity to collect and condense all this information in a single file debian/copyright. Doing so may be a great service for people that work on the source packages, right, but I really don't think this is currently a requirement, nor should maintainers be forced to do so. Hm, valid point. I don't believed this has not been discussed on a grand scale before and didn't lead to a consensus. The topic is just too important. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-11-30 04:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: You can (with your Debian hat on, I am not talking about upstream here) repackage the source to *not* include the autogenerated files as part of Debian distributed sources. IF the files truly are only autogenerated at the target build host you need not document it - but all that we ship mind that i somewhat agree with that (i call it somewhat because i can see and appreciate the value of having everything in the source package being documented, while at the same time i'm still lazy and would happily not do it if this is not only tolerated by accepted behaviour), the reason why i started this discussion is not because i don't care about licensing of those files; but that i think - as felipe has already pointed out - that properly documenting those files as is currently suggested only creates noise. my reasoning is, that those generated (but copyrighted) files, are virtually the same for all packages that use autotools. assuming that about 40% of all the C/C++ based debian packages use autotools (that is just a wild guess based on nothing but intuition) this would eventually suggest that we add the very same information to about 4000 packages or so (naively interpolating from debtags) i thought that it might be helpful, if we shorten that information to something like snip Files: libtool, config.sub, config.guess,... License: autotools see /usr/share/doc/licenses/autotools /snip i'm aware that it might not be that simple, as i haven't followed the evaluation of the various licenses applied to autotools generated files. If you are lazy and want least possible documentation of autotools, then add a single Files section something like this: Files: configure* Makefile* *m4* config* libtool* Copyright: 1992-2008, Free Software Foundation, Inc. License: GPL-2+ Extend with missing, depcomp, etc and don't give a shit about exceptions or more liberal licensing - just treat it all as being contaminated with GPL-2+. which is a similar suggestion as mine above. however, i'm not so convinced about the contaminated with GPL-2+ argument. I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool that is clearly good enough that you use it. hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of those great tools. even if i was lazy and [...] treat it all as [...] GPL-2+ there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work. and with my debian hat on, it was not my decision to use those tools; i only respect upstreams intention. fmgasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7XVlAACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvSGwwCeJmqXGIrJxYwtShFtS0Y7Zwl4 cHsAoLZFfsGpRjbCV5eq6tdyvv4gsQwp =PwqZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On 11-12-01 at 11:26am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: the reason why i started this discussion is not because i don't care about licensing of those files; but that i think - as felipe has already pointed out - that properly documenting those files as is currently suggested only creates noise. my reasoning is, that those generated (but copyrighted) files, are virtually the same for all packages that use autotools. assuming that about 40% of all the C/C++ based debian packages use autotools (that is just a wild guess based on nothing but intuition) this would eventually suggest that we add the very same information to about 4000 packages or so (naively interpolating from debtags) If code is duplicated 4000 times, then licensing of code needs to be stated 4000 times. i thought that it might be helpful, if we shorten that information to something like snip Files: libtool, config.sub, config.guess,... License: autotools see /usr/share/doc/licenses/autotools /snip i'm aware that it might not be that simple, as i haven't followed the evaluation of the various licenses applied to autotools generated files. Feel free to file a bug report against base-files. I doubt it will be accepted, because it is not a single license but a range of different licenses carefully applied to various of the autogenerated files. If you are lazy and want least possible documentation of autotools, then add a single Files section something like this: Files: configure* Makefile* *m4* config* libtool* Copyright: 1992-2008, Free Software Foundation, Inc. License: GPL-2+ Extend with missing, depcomp, etc and don't give a shit about exceptions or more liberal licensing - just treat it all as being contaminated with GPL-2+. which is a similar suggestion as mine above. however, i'm not so convinced about the contaminated with GPL-2+ argument. Treating them all as GPL-2+ is the very essence of the proposal: Avoids changing base-files. I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool that is clearly good enough that you use it. hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of those great tools. even if i was lazy and [...] treat it all as [...] GPL-2+ there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work. Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another. and with my debian hat on, it was not my decision to use those tools; i only respect upstreams intention. You have the option of repackaging the source with those autogenerated files removed. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On 11-12-01 at 12:13am, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 00:16, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't match any License: paragraph. I guess what you find strange is license names of this form: License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception That, I believe, is perfectly correct according to (latest drafts of) DEP-5. Please elaborate what you find strange about it. I do not know what is the current status of DEP5. What I found strange was the use of spaces (which are otherwise used as separator) in the license name. If you mean the spaces in above example, then it is IMO pretty clearly documented at http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#license-specification - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool that is clearly good enough that you use it. hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of those great tools. even if i was lazy and [...] treat it all as [...] GPL-2+ there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work. Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another. Why do you suggest that respecting licensing involves putting stuff into the copyright file? There are a few licenses that require that[1], but those involve only stuff that gets shipped in binary packages (because the source is already documented by itself. Otherwise, it would be undistributable). [1] More correctly, debian's approach to complying is putting the stuff in the copyright file. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On 11-12-01 at 03:56pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool that is clearly good enough that you use it. hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of those great tools. even if i was lazy and [...] treat it all as [...] GPL-2+ there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work. Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another. Why do you suggest that respecting licensing involves putting stuff into the copyright file? There are a few licenses that require that[1], but those involve only stuff that gets shipped in binary packages (because the source is already documented by itself. Otherwise, it would be undistributable). [1] More correctly, debian's approach to complying is putting the stuff in the copyright file. Uhm, perhaps we are talking past each other here: In above I do not see the opposite of respect being violation of license but simply being disrespectful. Does it make sense now? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On 11-12-01 at 04:25pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 16:12, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 11-12-01 at 03:56pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool that is clearly good enough that you use it. hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of those great tools. even if i was lazy and [...] treat it all as [...] GPL-2+ there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work. Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another. Why do you suggest that respecting licensing involves putting stuff into the copyright file? There are a few licenses that require that[1], but those involve only stuff that gets shipped in binary packages (because the source is already documented by itself. Otherwise, it would be undistributable). [1] More correctly, debian's approach to complying is putting the stuff in the copyright file. Uhm, perhaps we are talking past each other here: In above I do not see the opposite of respect being violation of license but simply being disrespectful. Does it make sense now? Mmm, a little bit. But then I fail to see how documenting the licenses in the copyright file is showing respect to anyone. As I see it, the copyright file is a technical document one must fill to comply with licenses and document them in every binary package (because the source is not available). Respect (and appreciation) is better shown by (as a user) a kudos message to the developers, and (as debian maintainer) maintaining a good relation and communication. I believe. kudos and good relations are ways to pay respect too. But none of those pay respect specifically to the work upstream have put into carefully deciding on a specific licensing for the work. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 00:16, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't match any License: paragraph. I guess what you find strange is license names of this form: License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception That, I believe, is perfectly correct according to (latest drafts of) DEP-5. Please elaborate what you find strange about it. I do not know what is the current status of DEP5. What I found strange was the use of spaces (which are otherwise used as separator) in the license name. I'm not quite sure what is the dep5 way to deal with this. Most likely the exception should be moved into the license paragraph and the qualificators to the name (with X exception) removed. Yes, treating a license that contains an exception as a combined unique license is also allowed by DEP-5, but is less usable, as the underlying general license is then not machine-readable. it seems that all those problems only come from the autotools generated stuff, which is something where i have the feeling that it should not create problems at all. I don't see no problems. Perhaps the problem you are talking about is the one of being cumbersome to properly document all these varying licenses for the code that be use? The problem is spending too much time doing things that give little gain. Plus, they also make the document less useful by adding unneeded noise. The files are autogenerated, and they don't either end up or pollute the binaries. This means they are of little use in the copyright file (which is meant to document binary packages copyright). You are free to not use the code if you find that the burden of playing along with the rules of the game (which includes documenting licensing!) is higher than the benefit of using it. Documenting licensing is not part of the rules of the game. The copyright file is a necessity because the original documentation (contained in the source package) is not shipped in the binary files, so we condense that into a single file shipped in every package. There is no point in documenting stuff that does not end up in the binary packages. i'm therefore wondering, what is the best way to deal with autotools generated files in general. You can (with your Debian hat on, I am not talking about upstream here) repackage the source to *not* include the autogenerated files as part of Debian distributed sources. IF the files truly are only autogenerated at the target build host you need not document it - but all that we ship in sources should be documented, whether or not it is used for the production of binary packages! I disagree with the above. If something does not end up in the binaries, it doesn't need to be documented in the copyright file. so i asked at #debian-mentors (see end of this mail), with the conclusion (as i read it), that it might probably be best to leave out generated files from debian/copyright alltogether. I read that not as being best but being tolerated. The big unspoken truth is that Debian has a long way to go to properly document all licensing - and autotools is not the best place to start, as it is much work with little gain (covers little if any new licensing or authors). would this be acceptable? for you? what do other think? Acceptable, yes. But ripping out proper documentation as you just did now is completely backwards IMO! It is unnecessary noise when trying to determine the licensing of things in the binaries we ship, which is why I said it should be removed. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 21:50, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 11-11-29 at 08:00pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: As discussed in another thread, the autotools stuff need not be documented in the copyright file, and is just unnecessary noise. Sorry for not paying attention to that. Could you please point me to that discussion, as I am a proponent for tracking licensing and copyright of *all* distributed code, whether available elsewhere or not. See the subthread starting at[1]. The reasoning behind that is not the availability of the code elsewhere, but the fact that it is automatically generated. [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2011-November/022605.html -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote: Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't match any License: paragraph. I guess what you find strange is license names of this form: License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception That, I believe, is perfectly correct according to (latest drafts of) DEP-5. Please elaborate what you find strange about it. I'm not quite sure what is the dep5 way to deal with this. Most likely the exception should be moved into the license paragraph and the qualificators to the name (with X exception) removed. Yes, treating a license that contains an exception as a combined unique license is also allowed by DEP-5, but is less usable, as the underlying general license is then not machine-readable. it seems that all those problems only come from the autotools generated stuff, which is something where i have the feeling that it should not create problems at all. I don't see no problems. Perhaps the problem you are talking about is the one of being cumbersome to properly document all these varying licenses for the code that be use? You are free to not use the code if you find that the burden of playing along with the rules of the game (which includes documenting licensing!) is higher than the benefit of using it. i'm therefore wondering, what is the best way to deal with autotools generated files in general. You can (with your Debian hat on, I am not talking about upstream here) repackage the source to *not* include the autogenerated files as part of Debian distributed sources. IF the files truly are only autogenerated at the target build host you need not document it - but all that we ship in sources should be documented, whether or not it is used for the production of binary packages! so i asked at #debian-mentors (see end of this mail), with the conclusion (as i read it), that it might probably be best to leave out generated files from debian/copyright alltogether. I read that not as being best but being tolerated. The big unspoken truth is that Debian has a long way to go to properly document all licensing - and autotools is not the best place to start, as it is much work with little gain (covers little if any new licensing or authors). would this be acceptable? for you? what do other think? Acceptable, yes. But ripping out proper documentation as you just did now is completely backwards IMO! If you are lazy and want least possible documentation of autotools, then add a single Files section something like this: Files: configure* Makefile* *m4* config* libtool* Copyright: 1992-2008, Free Software Foundation, Inc. License: GPL-2+ Extend with missing, depcomp, etc and don't give a shit about exceptions or more liberal licensing - just treat it all as being contaminated with GPL-2+. I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool that is clearly good enough that you use it. would it be a good idea to add a section about howto handle autotools generated files to the wiki? Sounds good - unless it is backwards and mandates us to strip documentation that is too correct. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
