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

Re: RFS: polygraph


> FWIW, Apache itself does not follow what you consider a license
> application requirement.
> For example, the very web page you linked to above, has no preamble and
> just says "Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation, Licensed under
> the Apache License, Version 2.0" at the bottom. Moreover, Apache httpd
> sources use a different preamble as well (e.g.,
> httpd-2.2.17/srclib/apr/mmap/unix/mmap.c -- the first file I checked).

Indeed it does not use the suggested text, but it still uses a lot more text
than polygraph does.

> As for being "extremely hard" to check, it seems like an exaggeration.
> Would the following preamble really leave a lot of question with regard
> to the distribution license?
> > /* Web Polygraph       http://www.web-polygraph.org/
> >  * (C) 2003-2006 The Measurement Factory
> >  * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 */

The good thing is: polygraph seems to consistently use this text. Hence indeed
it can be pretty easily checked by testing for this particular pattern. Yes, my
statement might have been over-exaggerated, but at bit more of standardization
whenever such proposals exist would help us all a lot.

> As you can see, Polygraph preamble uses the exact same text used by
> Apache site. That text is a part of what is recommended by Apache
> License; it just does not repeat what is already said in Apache License
> itself.

I pretty much fail to see in what way it uses "exact the same text" - is it the
words "Licensed under ..." you are referring to? Then at least you missing the
first two lines of the Apache-proposed text, which is the copyright information.
Here you are in fact certainly lacking sufficient information, because (C) is
not generally equivalent to "Copyright" under all copyright laws. 

> IMO, we are not doing anything wrong here, but we should be pragmatic
> about this issue: Humans should have no problems, but if the problem is
> with automated tools used by Debian, we should try to accommodate them.
> There is probably some flexibility here because they apparently work
> fine with other packages using custom preambles, such as Apache httpd.
> For example, perhaps including the URL of the Apache license would be
> sufficient to pass those automated checks?

I'd suggest the following procedure: if this copyright/license statement gets
ack'ed by ftp-master, i.e., polygraph is accepted into the archive, then this
license header must be sufficient (not only for polygraph, but also for other
packages). It's then time to file a bug against the devscripts package to
acknowledge this fact.

Thanks a lot,

Attachment: pgpC_kxej2FAp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: