Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser
Holger Levsen wrote:
> [..] In future,
> please increase the debian revision whenever you publish your package (even
> on mentors) again, so that sponsors can look at the diff with debdiff easily.
ah, ok, good to know (debdiff)! I just thought that debian revision
numbers are only incremented for successfully uploaded/sponsored
packages, will keep this in mind now. ;-)
> ./src/gnome-color-chooser.1 says the licence is GPL, which means GPL3, while
> debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... please fix.
fixed, changed manual page license from GPL to GPL2+
> ./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while debian/copyright
> says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in
> your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok,
> but I doubt it. Either you need to state the different licences in
> debian/copyright or use the same licence (but as they are copyrighted by the
> FSF and others you cant just change the licence OTOH i've also seen this
> files with other licences...).
I created these (and almost all other files) with the gpl utility by the
FSF. In this case I used `gpl -am` to create a properly licensed
Makefile.am .... at least, that is what the gpl tool is supposed to do.
I don't know how to name this license in debian/copyright now. Any
> ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)...
to be honest, i looked at some other debian source packages (e.g.
nautilus and serpentine) and couldn't find an entry in debian/copyright
for install-sh... so, what would i have to add there?
> ./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says it's
> based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm
> not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the
> result under the GPL(2+).)
> ./src/combobox.h has the same issue as combobox.cc
IANAL, but I asked in their chatroom and some of them said that this is ok.
The FSF says: "Every version of the LGPL gives you permission to
relicense the code under the corresponding version, or any later
version, of the GPL. In these cases, you can combine the code if you
migrate its license to GPLv3, and use GPLv3 for your own work as well."
As gtkmm's source is licensed under LGPL2+ and not LGPL2.1+, i guess
that relicensing under GPL2+ is ok.
> ./NEWS is useless since it's empty. Please either fill it with useful content
> or remove it from the Debian package.
done (next upstream version will do the same)
> And, "btw" this feels strange when reading it:
> # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives
> # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
> # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
> In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to give
> unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-)
heh.. well, this file is just created by the FSF gpl utility. I guess it
means a special exception to a personal copyright and I don't think that
"free software" is a concept of law and implies that exceptions ;-) but
I don't know... i thought that using FSF tools consequently to create
license headers would prevent me from having copyright issues later *sigh*
> ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced and
> not just refer to the software licence.
ok, that will be changed with the next upstream version if this is ok.
> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <email@example.com>
> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can
> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality.
> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.
> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is
> not approriate for legalize.
> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.
It's the same automatically generated file as used by any other
gettextized software i know (like, again, nautilus and serpentine.. or
other GNOME projects), including the license.. and including the "file
file" bug. Are you sure that this is really not suited for Debian main? :(
> On a unrelated (to sponsoring this software) note, I want to remark that I
> dislike how launchpad appearantly (makes software authors) deal(s) with
> translations: the .po files do not contain any info about the person who did
> the translation,
Yes, i mislike its behavior, either. But with it it's very easy for
newcomers to become a translator and i really appreciate the translation
work done for gnome-color-chooser by the launchpad community.
> they list you as the last translator (which I doubt is just
> not true, but if you speak so many languages, wow!) and some launchpad
> checkout data. The Language-Team pseudo headers list some mailling lists as
> contact though.
The last translator is correct, though. I often fixed formatting issues
> Please dont get frustrated with this legalize strictness :-) Solving this now
> saves us from the frustration of a upload to NEW and an instant rejection by
> the ftpmasters - licences and debian/copyright is the first they check, as
> it's the easiest to spot mistakes.
yeah, it seems to be a huge process to get a package into debian, but i
guess this quality assurance is just _why_ I'm using it. So no fear,
I'll keep trying (and learning). ;-) I just hope the legalize issues can
be solved soon.
I'll upload 0.2.3-2 as soon as i get dpkg-buildpackage to work again *g*
Thank you very much for your deeper look and your useful comments!
> P.S.: Are you subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org or should I keep bcc:ing you?
> (I'm subscribed, please don't cc: me.)
No, I'm not subscribed to the list, so being (B)CCed helps me to realize
faster that someone has replied! ;-)