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

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

Hi Luis,

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:45:50AM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
> I'm taking a cut at fixing the copyright file.
> For this I'm following the guidelines in:
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#license-field
> The "copyright" file in fis-gtm-initial has two license sections.
> A) The GTM license,    which is AGPL-3.0
> B) The debian/* files license,   which is GPL-2+

Using any free (and compatible) license for debian/* files is fine.
For simplicity reasons I usually use "same as above" style license. 
> For the case of (A), the full text of the license is in the file,

Yes.  This is because there is no copy of AGPL installed on Debian
> While for (B), only a summary of the GPL2 license is in
> there, and a reference to the full text in the file:
>          /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2
> It would seem like a good idea to simplify the text in (A)
> to the the same as (B).   However, in my installation,
> the directory:
>                  /usr/share/common-licenses/

You shoul *only* refer to packages inside this directory (which comes
with package base-files).  Refering to random copies of licenses does
not work.
> Then, when searching for a potential
> AGPL-3 file with apt-file, I get:
> command:
>                 apt-file find AGPL-3
> result:
> r-base-core: /usr/share/R/share/licenses/AGPL-3
> r-base-core-ra: /usr/lib/Ra/share/licenses/AGPL-3

Most probably these packages get lintian warnings about "duplicate
license file there".  You can test lintian on these packages if
you do not believe.
> Is there a reason why there is not a
> full AGPL-3 file in a common place ?

I think it was previousely discussed - at least I remember discussion
about including MPL.  There was some consensus about not including it
based on numbers of packages featuring this license.  Feel free to try
filing a bug report to base-files and ask for inclusion.  IMHO the time
you will spend just including the full text is way shorter than doing
the according discussion.
> Should then I leave the full text of the license in
> the "fis-gtm-initial/debian/copyright" file ?

> or could I refer to the full text of AGPL
> at the GNU site:
>     http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.txt    ?

No.  The license MUST be included inside the package.  Otherwise your
package will never pass ftpmaster.
> In the meantime, I follow your advice of using "."s
> to fill-up the empty lines and convert the full license
> into a single paragraph.
> ...
> License: AGPL-3.0

> My assumption is that in this way it will be better suited
> to be machine readable.

> Here is the relevant diff:

Can you please simply commit your changes and let me have a look.  It
does not matter whether it fixes the problem or just changes the error /
or warning.  That's way simpler for me to understand.

> (I also noticed that I was placing the "." chars
> in the first column, and that Thorsten's section
> has them in the second column, aligned with
> the rest of all the text, and so are the examples
> in:
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#license-short-name,
> This could have been my mistake in the first place...)
> After that I run "debuild" again,
> and this time "lintian" is happy:
> .....
> Now running lintian...
> Finished running lintian.
> .....
> So, I have a modified version of the "copyright"
> file ready to commit to SVN.

So if it is ready to commot just be bold and do not wait. :-)
> Any objections to committing this "debian/copyright"
> file in its current form  ?

Please assume every commiter to the Debian Med repository would ask me
for permission to commit.  I'm afraid I would not scale. ;-)
> Also,
> are there specific rules regarding the format and
> content of SVN commit messages ?

The rule is: "Whatever might sound sensible to you."

> The policy doesn't seem to have one:

No.  I would regard this as to complex to give advise about.  Just write
whatever you want to tell your coworkers.
Kind regards



Reply to: