Bug#255955: [email@example.com: Re: Accepted mmake 2.2.1-4 (all source)]
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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).
> It depends on the particular case.
> > That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
> > to be clear.
> No no, I think you still don't understand.
> Merely distributing a copy of the GPL *means nothing*. What must
> happen is the author must say "this work is distributed under the
> terms of the GPL." It is totally irrelevant what any of the files are
Ok. But he do that in the current version right? If he does not do that
in a later version is not very relevant.
> In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
> technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
> *which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
> license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
> LICENSE, or by some other way. He did not, and that's a bug.
Ok. If we need to be that hard we have to file serious bugs on a great
number of packages!
Here is some samples:
hsftp - note in readme but no licensing source comments
kernel-patch-ctx - no notes at all, but they are kernel patches
and upstream release them (or did at least) just as patches.
lshw - just a COPYING file
cron-apt - just a COPYING file (this should be ok as I'm the author)
setserial - just as a small note in version.h and linux/serial.h no
GPL document in upstream sources at all.
So to be real even a package that was a part of base (until just a
week or two ago, setserial) has uncertain licensing infomration. I
may even find it in tools that are part of base, but I have not started
to look yet.
I'll CC debian-legal about this.
> The latest version, by contrast, contains no such statement at all,
> anywhere at all. It simply distributes the GPL (which the old version
> did too). It is totally irrelevant what filename the GPL is put in.
> What makes this a serious bug, and something that could warrant the
> package being removed, is that we should have real doubts about the
> intentions of the upstream maintainer. He *removed* the grant of
> permission to copy--not just failed to include one--and he has
> declined to answer repeated queries from Debian about what his
> licensing intentions are.
Ok, I'll try to contact him too.
> > 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)?
> No. It is totally irrelevant what the filename is. Distibuting a
> copy of the GPL is not, in any way, shape, or form, the same thing as
> licensing a program under the GPL.
Ok, then I have to file serious bugs on a number of my own packages,
right, even if I'm the author?
> > 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.
> Hogwash. The consequence is that mmake would not be part of sarge.
> Mmake is not a very important program.
Even if it has been in debian for a VERY long time? It was a part
of woody (at least).
Not that I really care about mmake, because I have never used it. It
is the principle that bothers me.
You are probably right but I really object on the severity of it.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ firstname.lastname@example.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| email@example.com 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 /