Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

in the same file. I think what Wookey is referring to is that GPL and LGPL licenses contain a line that says something like: 'Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.' I believe this copyright refers to the text of the license itself. Hence, it might not be a good idea to include a second

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

Soren, ... but it is also perfectly fine to ship them in the same file. I think what Wookey is referring to is that GPL and LGPL licenses contain a line that says something like: 'Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.' I believe this copyright refers to the text

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

Wookey, On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:51:10 AM MST Wookey wrote: > On 2024-03-04 11:19 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > Alan, > > > > These are good questions. > > > > 1. Yes, there must be a copyright statement. Only the person, people, > > group, or or

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

On 2024-03-04 11:19 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > Alan, > > These are good questions. > > 1. Yes, there must be a copyright statement. Only the person, people, > group, > or organization that holds the copyright can issue a license for other people > to use the

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

Thanks you for the confirmation. Really appreciate it! They have added a copyright file; so it should be all good. I was likely being overly cautious and they might have been too. It tripped me up when they indicated (L)GPL might have to be treated differently, and when I looked up projects

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 03:50:27AM +0530, Alan M Varghese wrote: > What I meant was that upstream does not know where to put the copyright > information or > how it should be formatted. Or, to rephrase, is there a preferred format for > a COPYRIGHT file > in a project

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

What I meant was that upstream does not know where to put the copyright information or how it should be formatted. Or, to rephrase, is there a preferred format for a COPYRIGHT file in a project that uses LGPL? This is the issue I opened upstream: https://github.com/hyprwm/hyprlang/issues/28

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

I can find an example > of > an LGPL project that includes the copyright information in the root of the > project. > (I found a project that does this for GPL[1], but not for LGPL). Why would that make a difference? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

Hello Soren, Thank you for answering my queries. I will share this with the upstream project. The project authors are unsure how to do this for an LGPL project. I will see tomorrow if I can find an example of an LGPL project that includes the copyright information in the root of the project

Re: FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

Alan, These are good questions. 1. Yes, there must be a copyright statement. Only the person, people, group, or organization that holds the copyright can issue a license for other people to use the work. So, you must have someone claiming a copyright or they do not have the legal ability

FWD: Copyright in LGPL projects

Sent message incorrectly to debian-mentors-request instead of debian-mentors. Correcting. Forwarded Message Subject: Copyright in LGPL projects Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:10:58 +0530 From: Alan M Varghese To: 1065...@bugs.debian.org CC: Matthias Geiger , SmartList Hello

Bug#982145: [PATCH] add missing copyright for nanosvg, fix wlr license name

d it looks like a free license to me. Using the right SPDX token here might make the FTP-master's job easier. I also reorder the Files: blocks so that the debian/ one is at the end, as idiomatic. --- debian/copyright | 33 - 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletion

Re: parse SPDX-License-Identifier to produce copyright file

Thank you for your suggestions. I'll give it a try. Fab Le 24 août 2022 20:52:25 GMT+02:00, Ryan Pavlik a écrit  : >Better yet, if you use the REUSE tool to extract an SPDX file, this >utility I wrote can coalesce it into a more human-usable DEP5-format >debian/copyright file:

Re: parse SPDX-License-Identifier to produce copyright file

Better yet, if you use the REUSE tool to extract an SPDX file, this utility I wrote can coalesce it into a more human-usable DEP5-format debian/copyright file: https://github.com/rpavlik/spdx-to-dep5 It's not suitable for use directly in a package, but it's a good starting point and can

Re: parse SPDX-License-Identifier to produce copyright file

On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 21:00 +0200, Fab Stz wrote: > Does there exist a tool for Debian that will parse a package directory (its > source files), extract the "SPDX-License-Identifier:" and produce something > that would fit into a machine-readable debian/copyright file? F

Bug#1017588: Your autotools copyright question

Copyright info from these two files is missing: libdrgn/arch_ppc64.c libdrgn/kdump.c

Re: parse SPDX-License-Identifier to produce copyright file

Hi, > Does there exist a tool for Debian that will parse a package directory (its > source files), extract the "SPDX-License-Identifier:" and produce something > that would fit into a machine-readable debian/copyright file? AFAIK, the reuse tool (which also generates these an

parse SPDX-License-Identifier to produce copyright file

Hi all, Does there exist a tool for Debian that will parse a package directory (its source files), extract the "SPDX-License-Identifier:" and produce something that would fit into a machine-readable debian/copyright file? Thanks Fab

Bug#1017588: Your autotools copyright question

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:13:00AM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 19.08.22 um 03:41 schrieb Michel Alexandre Salim: > > Quick question (applies to drgn, not libkdumpfile) - if the tarball > > contains some m4 rules copied verbatim from autotools, do I have to list > >

Bug#1017588: Your autotools copyright question

Am 19.08.22 um 03:41 schrieb Michel Alexandre Salim: Quick question (applies to drgn, not libkdumpfile) - if the tarball contains some m4 rules copied verbatim from autotools, do I have to list them in d/copyright? The answer is tricky: Per Debian Policy you have to include every license

Re: Handling files with no copyright notices, many contributors

what to put in my DEP-5 copyright file. > > Linux Git shows that this file has had too many contributors to > enumerate, and in fact it's been in Linux since before 2.6.12-rc2, > which is the oldest version in the main repo's history. > > Documenting everyone that has ever contr

Handling files with no copyright notices, many contributors

in my DEP-5 copyright file. Linux Git shows that this file has had too many contributors to enumerate, and in fact it's been in Linux since before 2.6.12-rc2, which is the oldest version in the main repo's history. Documenting everyone that has ever contributed to this file would take an immense

Contributors in d/copyright

Hi, dumb question. I convert another d/copyright into DEP5 format. The old file contains: Upstream author: Werner Lemberg With help from: Per BOTHNER Noah FRIEDMAN Kenichi HANDA Gernot HASSENPFLUG Wonkoo KIM Yi-Liang KUO Hin-Tak LEUNG Eberhard MATTES

Debian Policy and copyright for binary packages made from foo-source

purposes, I have this notice in my debian/copyright file: Comment: This file specifies licensing information only for the source package, which merely provides the tooling for the sh-elf port. For licensing information about the GNU Binutils binaries, consult /usr/share/doc/binutils-common/copyright

Handling binaries with cme update dpkg-copyright?

Hello, Does anyone have any advice or examples of using cme to manage d/copyright on packages that contain binary artifacts? They usually end up with garbage in the Copyright field. I can ignore by paths/suffix in copyright-scan-patterns.yml, but then cme thinks that they aren't in the archive

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

t SPDX-License-Identifier is easier to grep for since the string SPDX is kinda uncommon. > I also have used "CME" for a variety of maintenance tasks, including > copyright-file creation/analysis. It's pretty good, if somewhat more > verbose that I would be writing it by hand. See my p

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

On Wednesday, 25 November 2020 20:35:15 CET Marc Haber wrote: > I am not sure how much of my packaging would need adapting to > Config::Model to just use the copyright generation mechanism, You can use "cme update dpkg-copyright" to handle only copyright file. With this comm

Bug#976225: RFS: reuse/0.11.1-1 [ITP] -- tool for REUSE copyright and license recommendations

tware/ * License : CC-BY-SA-4.0, CC0-1.0, GPL-3.0-or-later * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/reuse Section : devel It builds those binary packages: reuse - tool for REUSE copyright and license recommendations To access further information ab

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 20:35 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > I am not sure how much of my packaging would need adapting to > Config::Model to just use the copyright generation mechanism, so I'll > probably stick with the busy work of hand-inspecting every single file. I don't think CME p

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 09:28:34AM -0600, Ryan Pavlik wrote: > Yes, it's disappointing that licensecheck doesn't handle the SPDX tags. > > I also have used "CME" for a variety of maintenance tasks, including > copyright-file creation/analysis. It's pretty good, if somewhat

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

Yes, it's disappointing that licensecheck doesn't handle the SPDX tags. I also have used "CME" for a variety of maintenance tasks, including copyright-file creation/analysis. It's pretty good, if somewhat more verbose that I would be writing it by hand. See my personal packaging

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 4:08 PM Marc Haber wrote: > after a second look, licensecheck doesn't look too good any more. It > doesn't grok the quite common SPDX notation, and I would love a tool > that also checks debian/copyright (it's machine readable for a reason) > and tells me

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

any pointers to tools that could help double-check debian/copyright to > > avoid wasting ftpmaster's time a second time and to get embarrassed a > > second time. I somebody wants to manually check, I would appreciate that > > as well. > > I believe "licensecheck&

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

Marc Haber left as an exercise for the reader: > I don't have an overview about the tooling that is currently available > to check the licenses of code in a source package. I would appreciate > any pointers to tools that could help double-check debian/copyright to > avoid wasting ftpm

Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

Hi, I have just finished rewriting a nearly 300 lines long debian/copyright file after an embarrassing ftpmaster-reject for a package that I thought was simple. The salsa project is https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gensio I don't want to call it a license mess, but I have counted six different

Documenting automatically generated files in debian/copyright

I’m doing a copyright check on a source package and it contains a number of automatically generated Makefile.in files. These files are most likely the result of upstream not fully cleaning their source tree before compressing into a tarball. Each Makefile.in file includes a Free Software

Re: RFH: dukpy - Copyright statement for vendored and modified code

On 2020-08-17 at 22:21 +0900, Sao I Kuan wrote: > It seems DukPy has a lot of vendored JavaScript modules, but modified > by DukPy author. > But the DukPy author didn't mention the vendored modules' copyright statement. > > Should I find the original code and follow those cop

RFH: dukpy - Copyright statement for vendored and modified code

Dear mentors, I am packaging DukPy[1] right now, and am having a question about a copyright statement. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/dukpy It seems DukPy has a lot of vendored JavaScript modules, but modified by DukPy author. But the DukPy author didn't mention the vendored modules

Re: Using d/copyright to exclude a directory EXCEPT certain files

Hi Reinhard, On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 14:03 Reinhard Tartler wrote: > I think I've implemented this feature here: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/devscripts/-/merge_requests/189 > Awesome, that's exactly the functionality that I was looking for! Thanks for authoring that change! AFAIUI it

Re: Using d/copyright to exclude a directory EXCEPT certain files

Hi Dod and thanks for the suggestion. On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 11:08 Dominique Dumont wrote: > On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 05:58:26 CEST Olek Wojnar wrote: > > However, upstream also includes a configuration file or two required for > > Package A in a directory containing several dozen Package B

Re: Using d/copyright to exclude a directory EXCEPT certain files

I think I've implemented this feature here: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/devscripts/-/merge_requests/189 AFAIUI it needs someone to approve and merge it. -rt On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:15 AM Olek Wojnar wrote: > Hi mentors, > > I'm not the best with Perl and although I've looked through

Re: Using d/copyright to exclude a directory EXCEPT certain files

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 05:58:26 CEST Olek Wojnar wrote: > However, upstream also includes a configuration file or two required for > Package A in a directory containing several dozen Package B files. In this case, I would politely ask upstream to move the configuration files in another

Using d/copyright to exclude a directory EXCEPT certain files

Hi mentors, I'm not the best with Perl and although I've looked through the source code of mk-origtargz [1] I can't figure out how (if) it is possible to do what I'm trying to accomplish. I think we're all familiar with the mk-origtargz function where one can specify "Files-Excluded:" from the

Re: Filling debian/copyright

On Friday, 29 November 2019 16:15:31 CET Sepi Gair wrote: > How to correctly fill debian/copyright file? For instance, I have a > software mostly written by one author, however, some other contributors > who also made commits in existing files, yet not added their names to > the c

Filling debian/copyright

How to correctly fill debian/copyright file? For instance, I have a software mostly written by one author, however, some other contributors who also made commits in existing files, yet not added their names to the corresponding section of the file with copyright info. Should I mention them as co

Re: Copyright for contributors

Jongmin Kim writes: > On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 02:48:12AM +0900, Jongmin Kim wrote: >> when upstream copyright text explicitly state the "contributors", like [1]: >> >> Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009, Paul Johnston & Contributors >> >> what shou

Re: Copyright for contributors

On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 02:48:12AM +0900, Jongmin Kim wrote: > Hiya mentors, > > when upstream copyright text explicitly state the "contributors", like [1]: > > Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009, Paul Johnston & Contributors > > what should I write at License:

Copyright for contributors

Hiya mentors, when upstream copyright text explicitly state the "contributors", like [1]: Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009, Paul Johnston & Contributors what should I write at License: in d/copyright? I could think License: 1998-2009 Paul Johnston & Contributors or just

Re: How specific must Copyright be?

Hi, On 6/12/19 3:01 PM, Wookey wrote: > On 2019-06-12 09:08 +0200, Birger Schacht wrote: >> Dear mentors, >> >> I ITP (#929666) a software that lacks a copyright statement. I asked >> upstream to clarify the copyright in the LICENSE file and upstream now >> pla

Re: How specific must Copyright be?

On 2019-06-12 09:08 +0200, Birger Schacht wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I ITP (#929666) a software that lacks a copyright statement. I asked > upstream to clarify the copyright in the LICENSE file and upstream now > plans to use > > Copyright 2018-2019 github.com/containers aut

Re: How specific must Copyright be?

On 2019-06-12 09:08:25 +0200 (+0200), Birger Schacht wrote: > I ITP (#929666) a software that lacks a copyright statement. I > asked upstream to clarify the copyright in the LICENSE file and > upstream now plans to use > > > Copyright 2018-2019 github.com/containers authors &

Re: How specific must Copyright be?

On 12/06/2019 08:08, Birger Schacht wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I ITP (#929666) a software that lacks a copyright statement. I asked > upstream to clarify the copyright in the LICENSE file and upstream now > plans to use >> Copyright 2018-2019 github.com/containers aut

How specific must Copyright be?

Dear mentors, I ITP (#929666) a software that lacks a copyright statement. I asked upstream to clarify the copyright in the LICENSE file and upstream now plans to use > Copyright 2018-2019 github.com/containers authors as a copyright statement. This seems a bit vague to me, in my experie

Re: Debian copyright file and contributors

On Friday, 19 April 2019 08:38:59 CEST Mo Zhou wrote: > The simplest way is to modify automatically generated copyright file: > > $ licensecheck -r --deb-machine . >> debian/copyright This can yield a verbose copyright file. You can also generate a consolidated file with $

Re: Debian copyright file and contributors

On Friday, 19 April 2019 00:04:03 CEST Tong Sun wrote: > What is the simplest way to put all contributors into the Debian copyright > file? Please don't. Contributors are not necessarily copyright owners. Debian policy [1] requires: > Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim co

Re: Debian copyright file and contributors

i, Apr 19, 2019 at 2:39 AM Mo Zhou - lu...@debian.org wrote: > > Hi, > > The simplest way is to modify automatically generated copyright file: > > $ licensecheck -r --deb-machine . >> debian/copyright > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 06:04:03PM -0400, Tong Sun wrote: >

Re: Debian copyright file and contributors

Hi, The simplest way is to modify automatically generated copyright file: $ licensecheck -r --deb-machine . >> debian/copyright On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 06:04:03PM -0400, Tong Sun wrote: > Hi, > > What is the simplest way to put all contributors into the Debian copyright >

Debian copyright file and contributors

Hi, What is the simplest way to put all contributors into the Debian copyright file? I know the hardest way is associate each with their corresponding change files, but for popular projects, the Debian copyright file would be unnecessarily HUGE. Would this be acceptable? Especially for those

Copyright attribution for included snippets in debian/copyright

Dear mentors, I'm solving RC (severity: serious) issue, for my uploaded package, regarding debian/copyright. And, I'm not sure about copyright attribution for included code snippets from blogs (code snippet released under same license). I have already described problem here: https

Re: Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

Jongmin Kim writes: > In case of git repository, it is possible to extract all the author's > information by tracking the commit history. Bear in mind that copyright law leaves plenty of ways that there is no connection betwee “person who authored the work” versus “entity who holds cop

Re: Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

A lot of appreciating all for your kind suggestions! On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:15:32AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > The “Machine-readable debian/copyright file” specification allows > free-form text in the “Copyright” field. > > With that said, in my opinion you should str

Re: Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:23:29 -0400, Tong Sun wrote: > > You can also check the file with: cme edit dpkg-copyright. > > > > These tools require cme packages with its recommended dependencies. > > cme - Check or edit configuration data with Config::Model > > This is

Re: Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:41 AM Dominique Dumont wrote: > > > Note that the copyright file can be generated from sources: .. > You can also check the file with: cme edit dpkg-copyright. > > These tools require cme packages with its recommended dependencies. cme - Check or

Re: Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 00:23:08 CEST Jongmin Kim wrote: > I'm new to packaging, and I am currently trying to write 'd/copyright' > file. I am watching some other repositories for studying the > conventions. Note that the copyright file can be generated from sources: https://wiki.d

Re: Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

Jongmin Kim writes: > Hi! > > I'm new to packaging, and I am currently trying to write 'd/copyright' > file. I am watching some other repositories for studying the > conventions. > > I can see that some packages have an upstream author's URL in their > 'Copyright:'

Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

Hi! I'm new to packaging, and I am currently trying to write 'd/copyright' file. I am watching some other repositories for studying the conventions. I can see that some packages have an upstream author's URL in their 'Copyright:', like 'Copyright: https://github.com/authorname'. Even though

Re: debian/copyright and po files

Hi Ben, Apologies for the delayed response. On Saturday, 16 June 2018 11:09 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Whether a person's creative work is restricted by copyright law, is a > matter less for Debian project members and more for experts in copyright > law. > > So your question coul

Re: debian/copyright and po files

Hugh McMaster writes: > Many of the files contain the following format: > > # SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE. > # Copyright (C) YEAR THE PACKAGE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDER > # This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package. > # > # Translators: > # Name 1 ,

debian/copyright and po files

Dear mentors, I'm currently creating a DEP-5 copyright file for a new package, but I'm confused about how I should handle po files. Many of the files contain the following format: # SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE. # Copyright (C) YEAR THE PACKAGE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDER # This file is distributed under

Re: Lintian warnings converting copyright to machine-readable

Hi, On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:16:47 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > That specification would mean the recipient can choose to redistribute > the work under *any* of those license conditions. I think that is not > what you mean to specify. Absolutely right, it's a combining work and

Re: Lintian warnings converting copyright to machine-readable

icense” field, in §7.2: In case of multi-licensing, the license short names are separated by `or` when the user can chose between different licenses, and by `and` when use of the work must simultaneously comply with the terms of multiple licenses. <URL:https://www.debian.org/doc/pa

Re: Lintian warnings converting copyright to machine-readable

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 08:22:26AM +0100, Jose G. López wrote: > License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GPL-2.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later or CC0-1.0 > or CC-BY-3.0 or LGPL-2.1-or-later or GPL-2.0-or-later The License field is "Formatted text, with synopsis". Only the first line is the list of license names. In

Lintian warnings converting copyright to machine-readable

Hello!, I'm packaging gigalomania and want to convert copyright to machine-readable format but I'm having lintian warnings I don't know how to fix. The original copyright is here: http://gigalomania.sourceforge.net/#licences There are a lot of images with different authors embedded into single

Bug#880613: apulse: missing authors from the copyright file

> Thus I wonder if it wouldn't be better to list them only collectively. In any case, it's not just The Bad Lennart. I've added the copyright for all files in 3rdparty/ in the exactly same way that is used in pulseaudio package, I guess that should be correct. Exceptions for the others are ad

Bug#880613: apulse: missing authors from the copyright file

Hi! I've just noticed that the package currently in NEW has the following: Files: 3rdparty/pulseaudio-headers/* Copyright: 2004-2017 Lennart Poettering Yet there are more authors. I see at least: 2006 Pierre Ossman <oss...@cendio.se> 2009-2011 Colin Guthrie 2011 Intel Corporatio

Re: copyright for debian/* files, collab-maint access

Lukas Schwaighofer <lu...@schwaighofer.name> writes: > I declared my ITA gmrun and I have two questions: > > 1. The current debian/copyright is written in a way that it does not >apply to the debian/* files. The copyright file (you don't say which, so I am loo

Re: copyright for debian/* files, collab-maint access

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 04:04:24 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > As the original maintainer declared the license as GPL-2 (only), it > seems obvious to me this applies to the packaging as well. I'd thus > not even bother contacting him and assume everything uses that > license.

Re: copyright for debian/* files, collab-maint access

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Lukas Schwaighofer wrote: > I declared my ITA gmrun and I have two questions: > > 1. The current debian/copyright is written in a way that it does not >apply to the debian/* files. So, as far as I can tell, the previous >m

copyright for debian/* files, collab-maint access

Hi mentors, I declared my ITA gmrun and I have two questions: 1. The current debian/copyright is written in a way that it does not apply to the debian/* files. So, as far as I can tell, the previous maintainers have not stated under which license they make their work available. Should

Re: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate

__ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this list's archives. Mailing lists service administrator should fix this. El 09/02/17 a les 12:43, Andrey Rahmatullin ha escrit: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:15:58PM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: >>

Re: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:10:08PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:30:25AM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > > And I don't find any documentation about this message. > lintian-info -t > > Or you could google it and find > https://lintian.debi

Re: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:15:58PM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > Sorry; I used DuckDuckGo. > I had seen that page, Yet you said "I don't find any documentation about this message" > but didn't identify which paragraphs is referred to. The description mentions words "Please also look if..." --

Re: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate

fix this. El 09/02/17 a les 12:10, Andrey Rahmatullin ha escrit: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:30:25AM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: >> And I don't find any documentation about this message. > lintian-info -t > > Or you could google it and find > https://lintian.debian.org/ta

Re: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:30:25AM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > And I don't find any documentation about this message. lintian-info -t Or you could google it and find https://lintian.debian.org/tags/copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate.html which is the same thing. -- WBR, w

Re: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate

Am 09.02.2017 um 11:30 tastete Narcis Garcia: Hi, This Lintian result is an error*:* E: ntfsundelete-tree: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate And I don't find any documentation about this message. This is the copyright file: https://git.actiu.net/libre/ntfsundelete-tree/blob/master

copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate

This Lintian result is an error*:* E: ntfsundelete-tree: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate And I don't find any documentation about this message. This is the copyright file: https://git.actiu.net/libre/ntfsundelete-tree/blob/master/debian/copyright -- __ I'm using

Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > For those who think it's important to document the licenses of these > files, I would encourage you to work on writing a well-tested and reliable > tool to automatically generate those stanzas (the notices are fairly > consistent and open for

Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) writes: > In #832941 Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: >> 6. config.guess, config.sub, configure, configure.in, Makefile.in and >> install-sh are not accounted for in d/copyright. > The license and the copyright of these files

Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

ink mentioning them is worth the effort, but probably you can avoid it, even if it is appreciate when copyright is the most "open" wrt single files. G.

Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) writes: > The license and the copyright of these files is pretty much the same all > the time (some details can depend on the date). It's part of the package maintainer's job to confirm that's the case for this specific package, and document it in ‘debian/cop

Copyright for Autoconf stuff

In #832941 Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > 6. config.guess, config.sub, configure, configure.in, Makefile.in and > install-sh are not accounted for in d/copyright. Hi, The license and the copyright of these files is pretty much the same all the time (some detail

Bug#840515: Copyright status of debian/cross-toolchain.mk

t; > > cross-toolchain.mk from the openbios packaging. > > > > Good to know it's useful. > > It was extremely useful indeed, big thanks for that! > > > > Can you please clarify on the copyright and licensing status of this > > > code? > > > > I

Bug#840515: Copyright status of debian/cross-toolchain.mk

Good to know it's useful. It was extremely useful indeed, big thanks for that! > > Can you please clarify on the copyright and licensing status of this > > code? > > I have written the code, so the copyright is mine. I haven't specified > any copyright for this file. Would GPLv2 or la

Bug#840515: Copyright status of debian/cross-toolchain.mk

Can you please clarify on the copyright and licensing status of this > code? I have written the code, so the copyright is mine. I haven't specified any copyright for this file. Would GPLv2 or later fine for you? I can also choose another license if you prefer. When we agree, I'll add a header w

Re: How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

That worked, thank you! Cheers, Patrick

Re: How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

Hi Patrick, > I: corridor source: unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright paragraph at > line 3 > > https://github.com/adrelanos/corridor/blob/debian_new/debian/copyright > > Any idea what is wrong in the debian/copyright file? Try switching the order of the two sectio

Re: How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

Hi, On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 12:23 +, Patrick Schleizer wrote: > Hi! > > I: corridor source: unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright paragraph > at line 3 > > https://github.com/adrelanos/corridor/blob/debian_new/debian/copyright > > Any idea what is wrong in the debi

How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

Hi! I: corridor source: unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright paragraph at line 3 https://github.com/adrelanos/corridor/blob/debian_new/debian/copyright Any idea what is wrong in the debian/copyright file? Cheers, Patrick

Re: public-domain in the debian/copyright

Got it. Thank you all 2016-02-04 17:51 GMT-02:00 Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org>: > "Gustavo S. L." <ght...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Thanks Wookey, > > > I did this: "License: public-domain > > No license required for any purpose;

public-domain in the debian/copyright

hello mentors lintian say that about one party for my archive by copyright "The files paragraph in the machine readable copyright file references a license, for which no standalone license paragraph exists" but in the manual of the copyright that if license is public-domain "the

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >