Re: Bug#762228: RFS: ufoai-music review

[Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>]

Hi Markus,
sorry for taking part of the discussion.

If you think the FTP master position is contraddittory I suggest you to open a thread in debian-devel with ftpmasters cc'ed.

Anyway in my opinion duplicating the lines is better also because copyright file is shown in packages.qa.debian.org/package-name

so can be seen for non-linux user, and I don't know if other linux distros have the same symlinks for copyrights.

(comes in my mind a use-case when upstream wants to look to the debian specific copyright file, to see if a debian patch can be accepted upstream, e.g. when the debian packaging has a different copyright than the upstream sources).

IANAL, but I honestly think a little duplication can prevent headaches and lots of google searches in such cases.

Have a nice day,

Gianfranco

(who is not a DD and only recently started to seriously care about copyrights issues)

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android, please escuse brevity, typos and top-posting.

From:"Markus Koschany" <apo@gambaru.de>
Date:Sat, 20 Sep, 2014 at 16:22
Subject:Re: Bug#762228: RFS: ufoai-music review

On 20.09.2014 16:02, Tobias Frost wrote:

> Addendum:
>
> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 15:45 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
>>> Absolutely agreed. But can you point me to examples where the short
>>> reference to /usr/share/common-licenses was deemed not appropriate by
>>> the FTP team?
>
>
> From
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
> (the FTP master provides that link in their REJECT-FAQ,
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html, under "Copyright")
> Its from 2006, but still valid)
>
>> - Its not enough to have the following two-liner:
>>  | On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License
>>  | can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' file.
>>
>>  There are license headers, like the one used for GPL in the example below, you
>>  should use those.

>

I think that contradicts the information from Debian's Policy and the
copyright format 1.0 manual and needs further clarification from the FTP
team. There are many packages that use copyright format 1.0 and the same
License paragraphs in the same way as I do and I am not aware that
anybody rejected packages because of that.

The example above is most like wrong because it refers to a symlink
license and not to a specific version.

If this is still the position of the FTP team and they simply
"overlooked" hundred of packages, I stand corrected. But I really hope
that this is no longer true for copyright format 1.0 because it would be
just another mindless copy&paste exercise without a real benefit.


Markus