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

Bug#681616: lintian: False positive: unused-license-paragraph.. when two licenses are given and described in different places



On 2013-09-05 12:24, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> It is my understanding that:
>>
>> """
>> Files: A
>> Copyright: ...
>> License: X or Y
>>
>> License: X
>>  $LICENSE_TEXT_FOR_X
>>
>> License: Y
>>  $LICENSE_TEXT_FOR_Y
>> """
>>
>> Works as intended.
> 
> actually, it doesn't.

Your sample copyright file does not follow the above pattern.  Namely,
your case has text under the "License: X or Y", which is presumed to be
the full text of the License.  I.e. your case does:

"""
Files: A
Copyright: ...
License: X or Y
 blah
"""

Rather than

"""
Files: A
Copyright: ...
License: X or Y
"""

> I am not aware of a package in the distribution,
> but mirabilos (Cc) and I stumbled upon this issue while preparing some
> packages for upload. I am attaching the relevant debian/copyright file
> for your reference. (Please note that the BTS mangles linebreaks in
> plaintext attachments in false accordance with MIME).
> 

Thanks for the reference; it was quite helpful in finding the issue.  :)

> Maybe it is not allowed to give a descriptive paragraph in the Files:
> section, like we did?
> 
> -nik
> 

I think that is the problem, from [1]:

"""
If there are no remaining lines, [...]. Otherwise, this field should
either include the full text of the license(s) or include a pointer to
the license file under /usr/share/common-licenses. [...]
"""

So, my reading of that is that all content of the License-field (after
the first line) is the "full text" of the license (or a pointer to the
license in /usr/share/common-licenses).  The remark you have in your
file should probably be moved to another field (e.g. Comment).  You need
not prefix it with "X-" as I recall.

~Niels

[1]
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field


Reply to: