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 :)
Heh
> 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.
Done.
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.
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand
andrew@etc.gen.nz |
Catalyst Cloud: | This space intentionally left blank
https://catalystcloud.nz |
Reply to: