Bug#792622: missing licenses in debian/copyright
- To: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Bug#792622: missing licenses in debian/copyright
- From: Samuel Thibault <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 01:41:56 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20161115004156.GY2574@var.home>
- Reply-to: Samuel Thibault <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <87fun45sxj.fsf@Niukka.kon.iki.fi>
- References: <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <20160117134844.GA13683@var.home> <20160602093149.GB2538@var.bordeaux.inria.fr> <87bmzlvduz.fsf@Niukka.kon.iki.fi> <871t0hv8cb.fsf@Niukka.kon.iki.fi> <87shswubj4.fsf@Niukka.kon.iki.fi> <87fun45sxj.fsf@Niukka.kon.iki.fi>
Control: tags -1 + pending
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo, on Sun 06 Nov 2016 21:06:48 +0200, wrote:
> Here is what I have so far.
It seems I never received that mail for some reason :/
> See "License: UNKNOWN-OSF" and "License: UNKNOWN-Berkeley"
> for some newly found problems.
Well, these should be fixed upstream actually.
> Building Debian binary packages does not read the file.
Let's not try to distinguish these, it looks to me like it brings
more overhead than good. Of course, if we have some files which pose
problem, such notice can be useful to to know that perhaps we could
simply drop them from upstream even.
> It might be good to merge the paragraphs that list the same
> licenses and the same copyright holders but different years.
Yes, please. I'd even say merge copyright holders. I personally really
don't want to maintain unmerged lists of holders and years, I don't see
the point of doing it for Debian: what Debian cares about is licences,
and crediting the people is good, but the detailed credit is not
important enough to spend time on it.
For now, I'll upload a very simplified version of your findings with a
newer upstream snapshot, which I believe will cover ftp-master's main
concerns: no GPL-2 / GPL-3 conflict any more, and doc/, pcmcia/, and