Re: lem_2022-12-10+dfsg2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hi,
Thanks for your time to review this again.:)
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 9:00 PM Sean Whitton
<ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:
>
>
> +----------------------+
> | REJECT reasoning |
> +----------------------+
>
> It looks like ocaml-lib/pset.mli etc. are LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception not
> LGPL-2.
>
The lesson I learned here is that my focus is on LICENSE[0] file:
```
The following files are modified versions of map and set from the
Objective Caml library and are distributed under the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL
PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 as below.
ocaml-lib/pmap.mli
ocaml-lib/pmap.ml
ocaml-lib/pset.mli
ocaml-lib/pset.ml
```
And the copyright statement in these files with linking-exception is
not as obvious than others like[1].
[0]: https://salsa.debian.org/ocaml-team/lem/-/blob/debian/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads#L69
[1]: https://github.com/rems-project/lem/blob/master/src/ulib/batReturn.ml
But you suggest me to apply LGPL-2.1+-with-linking-exception for
ocaml-lib/pmap* and ocaml-lib/pset.*, I am not sure when I look at
these files again. For example, the copyright from
ocaml-lib/pmap.ml[2]
```
(* Objective Caml *)
(* *)
(* Xavier Leroy, projet Cristal, INRIA Rocquencourt *)
(* *)
(* Copyright 1996 Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et *)
(* en Automatique. All rights reserved. This file is distributed *)
(* under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License, with *)
(* the special exception on linking described in file ../LICENSE. *)
```
To my knowledge, I think we can use `LGPL-with-linking-exception`
License from the hit, but it seems there is no such License in FOSS.
But if we combine the contents of the copyright of these files with
the LICENSE[0] file, could we use `LGPL-2-with-linking-exception` as
license for these files more appropriate? like this [3], Please
correct me if I am wrong here.
[2]: https://github.com/rems-project/lem/blob/master/ocaml-lib/pmap.ml#L3C1-L10C74
[3]: https://sources.debian.org/src/why3/1.7.2-2/debian/copyright/?hl=13#L13
> +----------------------+
> | Other comments |
> +----------------------+
>
> You don't need this much details. You can coalesce copyright statements for
> files with the same license. E.g. the stanza for examples/cpp/cmm.lem,
> hol-lib/lemLib.sml and hol-lib/lemScript.sml can be a single stanza, and so
> on. You probably only need two or three stanzas.
Thanks for reminding this again. Here I have one question that needs
to be verified. Taking these files as an example[4], could we convert
into [5]? The reason I hadn't done this before was that I was worried
it would amplify some rights claims for some copyright holders. For
example, in [5], I think the below copyright snapshot：
```
Files:
examples/cpp/cmm.lem
hol-lib/lemLib.sml
hol-lib/lemScript.sml
Copyright:
2011-2012 Mark Batty
2011-2012 Scott Owens
```
will lead to `Mark Batty` has the same copyright claims on
`hol-lib/lemLib.sml` also. Or I am misunderstanding again here?
[4]: https://gist.github.com/yuzibo/4e77a2ec7e7cf5a2189f462111bf0794
[5]: https://gist.github.com/yuzibo/473a0de37ba2507caacf47efde7624c3
[6]: https://gist.github.com/yuzibo/4e77a2ec7e7cf5a2189f462111bf0794#file-copyright-orginal-L7
>
> +----------------------+
> | N.B. |
> +----------------------+
>
> This review may not be exhaustive. Please check your source package
> against your d/copyright and the ftpmaster REJECT-FAQ, throughly,
> before uploading to NEW again.
>
I'm sorry that this package takes up so much of everyone's time and
energy but I believe that I have learned so many valuable experiences
in this packaging.
Thanks for all again!
Yours sincerely,
Bo
> Thank you for your time and contribution!
>
> Sean
Reply to: