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

Re: HELP needed for uploading a new upstream version of the Rheolef package



On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:18:28PM +0200, Pierre Saramito wrote:

> > In this precise case, this file looks incorect: it states that most of the code
> > is GPL-3 (only) and that utils/bamg/* is LGPL-2.1 (only). But these two
> > licenses are incompatible!
> > Looking at the source code, it looks like utils/bamg/* is LGPL-2.1+ (note the
> > plus, which means v2.1 *or later*), which solves the problem.
> 
> Hum... I am not very fluent with this subject!
> I've just added a + after LGPL-2.1 for utils/bamg in debian/copyright
> and enter "git push" : is it fixed now ?
> 
> 
> > Also, it could not figure if the rest of the code is GPL-2+ or GPL-3+ (the README file says
> > GPL-2+, but the COPYING file says GPL-3+).
> 
> The upstream source code has updated the COPYING file to GPL-3+ while, in the header
> of some individual files, there is some previous text still indicating GPL-2+.
> It will fixed later in the upstream. 
> Is it a problem for uploading the new 7.0 upstream version in Debian ?

Since GPL-3 is implied by GPL-2+, this is not by itself a problem (no need to
make a new upstream release).

Still, the debian/copyright file is not yet correct:

- the description of the various licenses is not complete, you must copy/paste
  the whole licensing terms (short of what is already in /u/s/common-licenses).
  See for example what is done here for GPL-2+:
   https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#examples

- there are files under Copyright 2000 Gray Watson and under the NTP license,
  not mentioned in debian/copyright:
    config/dmalloc_return.h
    util/dmallocxx/conf.h
    util/dmallocxx/dmallocc.cc
    util/dmallocxx/return.h
    util/dmallocxx/settings.h

- similarly, config/install-sh is under the Expat license. I think that's all
  for the missing files, though I did a very superficial check.

- for the rest of the software, and debian/*, why not using GPL-3+ instead of
  GPL-3?

- moreover, you could use a separate license paragraph for the latter two, to
  avoid duplicating license information

I could do the above changes myself, though I would prefer you do them. Let me
know. In any case, the copyright file is a very important one (maybe the most
important one), so great care should be given to ensure it is accurate.

Note that you can also use "cme fix dpkg-copyright" from
libconfig-model-dpkg-perl once you are finish, to fix some
automatically-fixable mistakes.

Best,

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  http://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: