Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Russ Allbery writes: > I'll be open about this: I think that there's a deep mismatch between > how we like to discuss things, which is why I'm trying to avoid getting > into a back and forth. I think you're just trying to be clear and > precise, but I find the close textual

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

On 20-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote: > […] I can try to write one more message to summarize how I see this > overall. Thank you for doing so. In the interest of not making a finely-parsed reply, I'll leave it at that and read it in detail later :-) You've certainly exceeded my request to explain

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Ben Finney writes: > Thanks for saying so. To talk with them, though, I would be better > informed if I could say what your position is and know wy; as it is I > feel I would be putting words into your mouth. I don't want to do that, > but that's what I'm left with so far.

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

On 19-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > > We may be describing different problems. I am responding to a bug report > > that claims: > > > Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with > > derivative works […] > > > and I'm asking

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Ben Finney writes: > We may be describing different problems. I am responding to a bug report > that claims: > Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with > derivative works […] > and I'm asking how that assertion squares with the text of the

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

On 19-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > > Why the entire contents? The only thing that clause requires is “the > > attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file”. > > Let's make this more concrete, because I'm not sure you understand > the nature

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Ben Finney writes: > Why the entire contents? The only thing that clause requires is “the > attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file”. Let's make this more concrete, because I'm not sure you understand the nature of the problem. Here's an example of a NOTICE

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

On 19-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > > That does require “Derivative Works […] must include a readable > > copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file > > […] in at least one of the following places: […] within the Source > > form

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Ben Finney writes: > That does require “Derivative Works […] must include a readable copy of > the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file […] in at > least one of the following places: […] within the Source form or > documentation, if provided along with the

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

On 22-Dec-2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with > derivative works […] My reading of the license text doesn't match that. I think you are referring to Apache License version 2.0, § 4 (d): (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Vincent Bernat writes: > There is some irony on having a warning about license.txt that shouldn't > be in the binary copyright (because "all license information should be > collected in the debian/copyright file") but an error when we don't copy > the notice file. Yeah, this

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

❦ 2 janvier 2018 12:04 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >>> We currently allow distribution of a binary-package-only Debian image >>> along with a written offer of source or, for non-commercial >>> distribution, a simple pointer to the Debian source archives. This >>> complies with the

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Vincent Bernat writes: > ❦ 2 janvier 2018 10:42 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >> We currently allow distribution of a binary-package-only Debian image >> along with a written offer of source or, for non-commercial >> distribution, a simple pointer to the Debian

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

❦ 2 janvier 2018 10:42 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >>> Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with derivative >>> works, but this is easy to forget. In many cases, we have effectively >>> the same information in debian/copyright, but even if this is the case >>> for

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Vincent Bernat writes: > ❦ 22 décembre 2017 19:58 -0800, Russ Allbery  : >> Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with derivative >> works, but this is easy to forget. In many cases, we have effectively >> the same information in

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

❦ 22 décembre 2017 19:58 -0800, Russ Allbery  : > Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with derivative > works, but this is easy to forget. In many cases, we have effectively > the same information in debian/copyright, but even if this is the case > for a

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Hi Russ, > I suspect you want package.docs in the long description of the tag instead > of package.install. Hah, yep; not sure how I typo'd that given that I meant to copy the exact meta-syntactic variable used in the dh_installdocs manpage. Fixed in:

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Chris Lamb writes: > Good catch. Fixed in Git: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=6110e0f1185e26d903dd0ed8a7a8edaae14cf905 I suspect you want package.docs in the long description of the tag instead of package.install. -- Russ Allbery

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

tags 885042 + pending thanks Good catch. Fixed in Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=6110e0f1185e26d903dd0ed8a7a8edaae14cf905 Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-

Bug#885042: Check inclusion of Apache 2.0 NOTICE files

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.65 Severity: wishlist Apache 2.0 requires distributing any NOTICE file along with derivative works, but this is easy to forget. In many cases, we have effectively the same information in debian/copyright, but even if this is the case for a specific release, it's not