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

Bug#703188: Re: Bug#703188: Offer to sponsor ruby-pygments.rb



Hello Axel

Please keep the original debian bug in copy for reference

On Sunday 23 February 2014 02:42:45 you wrote:
> • vendor/custom_lexers/github.py has a bsd-license mentioned in the
> header, but there is no LICENSE file or verbatim license in the
> header. I read over several docs about the copyright-file and especially
> [1] makes me think that I should approach upstream about that (I put a
> bsd-license field in the copyright-file for this file but lintian wants
> the license verbatim). Would you concur, or is there a simpler way?

I concur. Looks like the author is charliesome @ github:

https://github.com/tmm1/pygments.rb/tree/master/vendor/custom_lexers

You can ask confirmation to charliesome and ask which bsd he wants (2, 3 or 4-
clause BSD) [1], mention that accurate licensing is important for Debian 
project. 

> • tests/test_data.py has no licensing information whatsoever because it
> appears to be taken directly from some third party project and has no
> licensing header. Here I am pretty sure that I have to check with
> upstream if they have a proper license.

Uh ? There's:

# This file is part of gunicorn released under the MIT license.
# See the NOTICE for more information.

Looks like this file was copied from (may be an older version of):

https://github.com/benoitc/gunicorn/blob/master/gunicorn/arbiter.py

So you can reuse the copyright data from gunicorn package

> • The ruby-pygments.rb thingy is a little puzzeling, but seems not to be
> too important. It seems to be due to the fact that the gem is really
> called pygments.rb. There is one other such case in the archive,
> ruby-http-parser.rb (not to be confused with ruby-http-parser), so I
> think this is going to be all right.

Yes, the file is trivial. 

Usually, when a file has no legal info, I use the general (c)/license 
mentioned by the authors in the root directory of the package. Unless there 
are reasons to believe that the file comes from another source. But I don't 
think this is the case for lib/pygments.rb.

HTH

[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: