Re: Inconsistent perl module acceptance by ftpmasters
James Troup (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> Ardo van Rangelrooij <email@example.com> writes:
> > At least one of these (libtest-inline-perl) still has the copyright in
> > the "old" way which you don't accept.
> *sigh* no, it's not.
> | This is the debian package for the Test::Inline module.
> | It was created by Ivan Kohler <firstname.lastname@example.org> using dh-make-perl.
> | The upstream author is:
> | Michael G Schwern <email@example.com>
> | Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:37:11 -0800
> | From: Michael G Schwern <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> | Subject: Re: Test::Inline copyright
> | Message-ID: <20030130063711.GG4189@george.schwern.org>
> | OPYRIGHT
> | Copyright 2001-2003 by Michael G Schwern <email@example.com>.
> | This program is free software; you can redistribute it
> | and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
> | See http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html
> The key difference is that upstream chose one of perl's licenses.
> Your package had only "under the same terms as Perl itself" (with all
> the associated problems previously discussed). Now granted,
> libtest-inline-perl should refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/ rather
> than the copy on the Perl web site and I obviously misread that. Bad
> me. [I guess that since you care so strongly about this, you've
> already filed a bug on the package right?]
Nope, not my department. I already got enough other Debian things on my
list. You simply should've ran lintian over the package. Isn't that
common practice for ftp-masters?
> But the actual point is libtest-inline-perl has a license (but refers
> to the wrong external file), whereas libxml-filter-sax1tosax2-perl had
> no (unequivocal) license (and didn't refer to _any_ external file).
But now hold on a minute. The copyright file of libtest-inline-perl states
"See http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html". You interprete that as
part of the upstream's copyright statement (Why? Because it has the same
indentation as the lines above it? That's rather vague.), but at the same
time you want it to point at /usr/share/common-licenses instead. How can
an upstream copyright statement point to the wrong external file? We start
cannot changin upstream copyright statements. We can only _add_ a pointer
to the copy on a Debian system (not having that is a lintian error).
> > This is getting redicilous.
> Actually I think you're already being far more than ridiculous.
He, I'm just trying to get some clarification here to know what needs
to be put in the copyright file. That's all.
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: firstname.lastname@example.org
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9