Bug#255955: [opal@debian.org: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
Hello
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 11:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> writes:
>
> > > associated with the copyrights in the actual source files, and that's
> > > what actually matters. I wish it were not so, but thus it is. We
> > > cannot tell from that file which things it covers, and that makes it
> > > not a valid license. :(
> >
> > Well this is the case with _many_ _many_ packages that debian ships.
>
> Well, we should file bugs against them!
Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
not include such source comments (hsftp).
> > A few developers (including myself) tend to forget to include the
> > GPL header into the actual source files. If we need to be that picky
> > we have to make a very deep review of all our packages.
>
> I'm not suggesting expunging them. But it's a bug which should be
> fixed. We can't pretend it's not a problem, because it really is.
> It has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
>
> In this particular case, upstream has not given *any* indication,
> after having been asked for some time. That makes me much more
> nervous. Also, the file "LICENSE" was removed in the most recent
> release. What does that mean?
That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
to be clear.
> > > debian/copyright is surely better than nothing, but it alas, does not
> > > solve the problem, so the bug should remain open. If upstream can't
> > > say what his actual licensing intentions are, then we will have to
> > > remove the package. (Which is, frankly, no huge disaster.)
> >
> > If you want I can upload the latest upstream version instead
> > that still have copyright information.
>
> Alas, the latest version is even worse, because it doesn't have the
> "LICENSE" file at all. There is no way we can possibly distribute
> that.
>
> We have to have *something* from upstream. The existing Debian
> version, with the LICENSE file, is a bug, and a serious one, but it's
> fixable and doesn't require immediate worry. It does require some
> communication from upstream.
>
> The most recent version of mmake, however, is totally undistributable
> by us; it contains no permissions to copy of any kind.
Did you actually read what I wrote? The new upstream has a "COPYING"
file with full GPL statement. Is that not enough as copying file
(except for source notes)?
ola@tigereye:~/build/debian/_qa/t/mmake-2.3$ ls -l
totalt 152
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 3321 2004-04-02 05:17 CHANGES
-rwxrwxr-x 1 ola ola 71486 2004-04-02 05:20 configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 681 2004-03-30 12:10 configure.in
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 18009 2004-03-30 12:10 COPYING
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 5585 2004-03-30 12:10 install-sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 1537 2004-03-30 12:10 Makefile.in
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ola ola 11464 2004-04-02 05:20 mmake.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 24384 2004-04-02 05:13 mmake.in
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 3223 2004-04-02 05:20 README
drwxrwxr-x 4 ola ola 100 2004-04-02 04:10 tildeslash
ola@tigereye:~/build/debian/_qa/t/mmake-2.3$
Do you really think this is a problem still? It can not be of 'serious'
severity at least. Not at least unless you want to keep the sarge
release away for a big number of months.
Regards,
// Ola
> Thomas
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: