Re: how to mention GPL in the debian/copyright file
Scripsit Jochen Voss <voss@seehuhn.de>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:58PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> What you should include is the exact notice found in the upstream
>> source which says that the program is covered by the GPL.
> Does this mean we need all the notes from the source files with
> duplicates removed?
Yes. All authors who claim copyright in a source file should be
credited in the Debian copyright file, together with the exact
statement of license they issued.
For many free licences this is a legal requirement, because the
notices in the source are not shipped in the .deb otherwise, and
even when it isn't it would be discourteous in extreme not to
quote it anyway. This is what /usr/share/doc/*/copyright is _for_.
> Does different white space count as being different?
Current best practice is, as far as I'm aware, something like:
1. Minor formatting differences, including different styles of comment
markup, line wrapping and other whitespace, can be compressed away
in the copyright file.
2. Similarly, two authors who assert copyright but give identical
license notices can be compressed into just giving both copyright
assertions in the copyright file, followed by the common license
notice.
3. Actual differences in wording should be preserved, even if they may
seem insignificant to the packager, except perhaps where the
difference is beyond any conceivable doubt due to a mere typo.
> Do you have any reference for this?
Policy section 12.5. A "verbatim copy of its copyright and
distribution license" means just what it says. Policy perhaps neglects
to explicitly point out that this applies simultaneously to every
copyright [notice] and every distribution licence that covers the
package, but I still think this can safely be left to the reader's
imagination.
> I find for example the appended notices. Should I replace my
> text blurb by the concatenation of all these notices?
Yes. See e.g. /usr/share/doc/xlibs/copyright for an example of how
large this can be in complex cases, but it all has to be there.
> PS.: I looked at the vroot.h license (last one in my list) which I
> did not spot before. I think is is ok for our purposes. Do you agree?
Yes, it looks like a minor rewording of the common 3-clause BSD license:
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
> its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby
> granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
> copies and that both that copyright notice and this permis-
> sion notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the
> name of Solbourne not be used in advertising
> in publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without
> specific, written prior permission.
>
> ANDREAS STOLCKE AND SOLBOURNE COMPUTER INC. DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
> WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL ANDREAS STOLCKE
> OR SOLBOURNE BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA
> OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
> TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE
> OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
--
Henning Makholm "I ... I have to return some videos."
Reply to: