OoO En cette matinée ensoleillée du dimanche 25 mai 2008, vers 09:12, "Aanjhan R" <aanjhan@gmail.com> disait: >> Despite COPYRIGHT file at the root of the source code, this software >> seems not licensed under GPL... It would be better if upstream included >> a clearer statement about the global license that his software is >> licensed because some files do not contain any copyright statement (data >> files). > This is something the upstream will have trouble. Since they have > exclusively given a COPYRIGHT info on the root of the src folder, I am > not sure if they will be willing to add the header to all the src > files. I am not sure whether I have understood if this is what is > required either. Copyright statements in source files are stronger than a general copyright file at the root of the source folder. Sometimes, some softwares are said to be licensed under GPL but include source files licensed under various licenses that are or are not compatible with GPL. Even when all licenses are compatible with the main one, this is better that upstream list all those files with their respective copyrights but this is not a requirement. However, when a software is about to be shipped in Debian, the maintainer has to list all file licenses, even when they are compatible with the GPL. This is because you have to prove that there is no licensing problem. This is your case. You have a global COPYRIGHT file while all other files are licensed differently with a license compatible with GPL. So you should list all files containing copyright from Stanford University. Moreover, I think that ftp-master may require more work about this. The only mention of GPL is inside COPYRIGHT. This file just contains the license. It does not say that the software is licensed under GPL. It is a reference file that should be pointed to when citing GPL. Each source file or a general README should contain a statement that the software is licensed under GPL. Something like that: ,---- | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify | it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 | as published by the Free Software Foundation. | | This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful | but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of | MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the | GNU General Public License for more details. | | You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public Lice | with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundati | 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. `---- IMO, there is two problems that should be fixed: - you should consider that irsim is licensed under the license at the top of most files, but this means that there are some files which have no clear license (data files). I don't know how to handle this case. - you should ask upstream to include a clearer statement about the license he wants to use (and even if he does that, you should still list all files that uses SU copyright) You may want to ask for more accurate advices on debian-legal. >> You ship a lot of files in /usr/lib/irsim. Those files seem to be >> architecture independant and should be shipped in /usr/share/irsim >> instead. Moreover, you ship some documentation that should be moved into >> /usr/share/doc. > Moved all the files to the respective folders. Now the lintian > generates the following warning. > W: irsim: package-contains-empty-directory usr/lib/irsim/ > Removing irsim folder generates the usr/lib folder empty message. Am > not sure how to do this. Pardon me for this stupid question. Just remove /usr/lib folder (rm -rf $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib at the end of the install target). -- No fortunes found
Attachment:
pgp1tX71sBAlx.pgp
Description: PGP signature