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

Re: Request for review etc of libmodule-install-substitute-perl

On Fri, 2020-11-27 at 20:30 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:01:01 +0100, Xavier wrote:
> > @gregoa:
> >  * build & autopkgtest OK
> >  * cme & duck OK
> >  * copyright OK after ^, but I don't find from where come "years"
> Not sure why you're asking me where Andrew found copyright years :)


> The actual problem I'm seeing is that we don't have any copyright
> statement in the whole code. I mean there is section titled
> "COPYRIGHT" in the README but it doesn't talk about (a) copyright
> holder but about the license.
> Well, the Berne Convention to the rescue which allows us to assume
> that the author is the copyright holder. Cf.
> https://perl-team.pages.debian.net/copyright.html#Berne_Convention

Yes, I had made an assumption that the author would hold the copyright,
and that is what dh-make-perl assumes as well as it generated the block
in debian/copyright.

> So I would write:
> Files: *
> Copyright: Ruslan Zakirov <ruz@cpan.org>
> License: Artistic or GPL-1+
> Comment: The upstream distribution does not contain an explicit
> statement of
>  copyright ownership. Pursuant to the Berne Convention for the
> Protection of
>  Literary and Artistic Works, it is assumed that all content is
> copyright by
>  its respective authors unless otherwise stated.


Perhaps this is something that dh-make-perl can insert in these
circumstances as well?

> (I tend to put no years there as upstream doesn't tell us anything
> about the period, and IMO it's not our job to second-guess them. But
> I'm also fine if someone deduces the years from the changelog or
> commit dates or whatever.)

I had looked at the Changes file to determine the copyright years. I am
happy to remove the year ranges if that is preferred.

> Also interesting is that Andrew put his work under GPL-2+. That's of
> course fine as a personal preference; we usually pick a superset of
> $upstream_license and $same_as_perl for debian/* (which is just
> $same_as_perl here and in most cases). - One reason why GPL-2+ might
> be problematic is that it leads to potential patches under a
> different license than what upstream uses …

My default license is GPL-2+. However, I see your point about patches
etc, so I have re-licensed it to $same_as_perl. I will make the same
change to some other Perl modules I'm working on as well.


Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand
andrew@etc.gen.nz              |
Catalyst Cloud:  | This space intentionally left blank
https://catalystcloud.nz |

Reply to: