I may be wrong, so I think I'll refer to the debian-devel wisdom before a possible reopening. On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:27:33 +0200, Robert Jordens wrote: > [Sat, 13 Sep 2003] Michał Politowski wrote: > > Package: libtunepimp1 > > Version: 0.2.1-1 > > Severity: serious > > Justification: Policy 12.5 > > This justification is totally unaplicable. Policy (especially your > quoted section) is about _packages_'s copyrights and the "copyright" How do you define _package_'s copyright and license when the _package_ contains parts distributed under different licenses? > > The manual page says: > > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under > > the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License > > Damn! You are simply riping that part of the sentence from the file > without any hesitation? It's not even a full sentence! No it isn't... > Didn't you see the next words? > > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this > document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, > Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software > Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts and no > Back-Cover Texts. ...but I don't think the rest of it adds anything to the argument. You probably mean "published by the Free Software Foundation", but why should I have to refer to external, overseas sources to see the text of the license? > > but you don't provide the license text. > > Where is the problem? > > If you want to read through it, do > > $ man gfdl Which is in exactly which package libtunepimp1 depends on? > or follow the implicit instructions in the manpage. > > (If you mean the discussion about the requirement to include every > referenced licence verbatim in every package, then I will wait for that > to be deicded upon which is not the case yet) Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL should refer to the files /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, and /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL respectively, rather than quoting them in the copyright file. That's current policy for me. > > Not to mention debian-legal being full of arguments over this particular > > licencse's freeness. > > You read that discussion, right? > > So I guess that you also realized that "the GNU Free Documentation > License with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts and no > Back-Cover Texts" is -- in fact -- DFSG compliant! From my knowledge (admittedly far from complete) this is not that clear. Anyway that was not the main point of the report, just a (possibly misplaced) side note. -- Michał Politowski -- email@example.com Talking has been known to lead to communication if practised carelessly.
Description: PGP signature