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

Re: RFS: eclipse-linuxtools 0.10.0-1 (new)

On 2012-06-04 21:15, Jakub Adam wrote:
> Hi Niels,
> On 23.5.2012 09:13, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> [...]
> I found a procedure how these files were generated in 
> libhover/org.eclipse.linuxtools.cdt.libhover.texinfoparsers/README.
> They are created from upstream provided *.texi documentation files,
> so the original copyright owners can be traced to:
> glibc-2.7-2.libhover: 1993-2007, Free Software Foundation - this
> is non-free as the documentation is under GFDL and includes
> invariant sections. Seems to me like linuxtools upstream is
> violating GFDL in this case, because the invariant sections aren't
> preserved in any form inside the .libhover file (but I can be
> wrong).
> newlib-1.16.0.libhover: 1992, 1993, 1994-2004 Red Hat Inc., GNU
> acmacros-2.68.xml: 1992-1996, 1998-2012 Free Software Foundation,
> Inc., GFDL-1.3+ no invariant sections (free)
> ammacros-1.11.1.xml: 1995-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 
> GFDL-1.3+ no invariant sections (free)

Thanks for clarifying this, to date I still have not founded any
copyright holders for the files owned by the Free Software Foundation.
 I have reported this upstream as a possible license issue.  For the
interested, the upstream bug is #381660 in the eclipse tracker[1].

[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=381660

> In the end, I decided to remove all of these files and, where
> possible, regenerate them from source packages we already have in
> Debian. As a bonus we now have more recent documentation than
> upstream. debian/docs/regenerateFromTexinfo.sh is meant to be run
> manually from time to time to refresh the files e.g. when new 
> version of automake is uploaded.

I don't suppose these files are installed in any binary package?  If
so, we could depend/recommend on them and use triggers to update the
generated file on the system (assuming the Java code doesn't rely on
starting eclipse or so).

> Right now, only replacements for acmacros-2.68.xml and 
> ammacros-1.11.1.xml are created, as I don't intend to package the
> libhover plugin in this linuxtools upload.


> Copyright owners for files in d/docs are mentioned in d/copyright.

We most likely have to ship the original files in the source package.
 If not to satisfy the GDFL, then to satisfy DFSG#2.  (In theory, the
packages we pull these files from could be removed from Debian).

>> What are *.dash files[3], do they come with a source and a way
>> to generate them?
> According to documentation[1] these are Systemtap dashboard
> modules, containing a SystemTap script and associated metadata.
> They can be created and loaded by the systemtap Eclipse plugin[2].
> The .dash file itself is a gzip compressed zip archive containing
> an xml file describing how the data from systemtap script should be
> displayed, for example:
> [...]

"a gzip compressed zip archive" as in something.zip.gz? o_O

> I think there is no need to exclude them from the source package.

You are probably right, seems like they are their own source.

> Regards,
> Jakub
> [...]


Reply to: