Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
>
>> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
>
> These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released
> and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect); and indeed, I think
> packages with GFDL material already have sarge-ignore bugs filed. For
> example, the GDB package has bug 212522 filed already. Yet it is on
> your list.
I said that I would not file bugs on packages that already had them;
that would be silly and counterproductive. I find that harassing
maintainers with duplicate bug reports does not endear them to you.
I generated the list with grep, awk, and sed. Before I file the bugs,
I always check to make sure that there are no bugs already filed. One
example which does not have a bug filed is wget.
>> 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of
>> the material in their copyright files;
>
> This is a bug now, but do you really think there are gobs of such
> packages?
Actually, you'd be shocked to know that this the case in at least 10
packages I've seen, and that would qualify as a mass-filing (which I
consider to be 10 or more bugs). Usually, this happens when
maintainers don't include the GNU packages' documentation licenses or
don't include things like copyright statements. This is easy to
overlook, and all too often it happens. wget is a good example of
this kind of accident also.
Reply to: