[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#210779: libtunepimp1: give me the license



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 -- mpol@charybda.icm.edu.pl
Talking has been known to lead to communication if practised carelessly.

Attachment: pgpoDFldrbtvw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: