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

Bug#686447: Review of debian/copyright for zfs-linux

On 08.08.2014 12:05, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:29 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

For this task I obtained the sources from https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-spl, branch master/ubuntu/precise, which seems to contain the most recent changes.

That is the code for the SPL (Solaris Porting Layer) that ZFS/ZoL depends on.

Oh, I mixed that up.

This have already been accepted (I saw a 0.6.3 update being accepted into the
archive a couple of days ago).

Probably it wasn't noticed, but man/man1/splat.1 still doesn't have a license. (The other manpage is not present in the Debian archive.)

Could you try/look at https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs instead?

Yes. I just had a brief look there and noticed that most files are licensed under CDDL-1.0, because a lot of code comes from OpenSolaris.

But the first stanza in debian/copyright is:
Files: *
Copyright: Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC.
License: CDDL-1.0

This contradicts the COPYRIGHT file, which states:
"The majority of the code in the ZFS on Linux port comes from OpenSolaris which has been released under the terms of the CDDL open source license.
Files which do not originate from OpenSolaris are noted in the file header and attributed properly."

So if a file doesn't contain a license header, it should be assumed to come from OpenSolaris, not Lawrence Livermore National Security.

This problem can be circumvented easily, by not listing every file with different copyright as separate stanza, but instead aggregation all copyright holders for files licensed under CDDL-1.0 into the first, general stanza (which also would make debian/copyright a lot easier to review/maintain, e.g. avoids duplicated stanzas etc.). If you don't object to this idea, I'm going to send you a patch changing this (and fixing any other issues I might find).

I'm going to take a closer look at the patch and see if I can apply it manually,
but as it is now, all but the first hunk fails.

If it helps, my patch is based on:
commit 3a4902645c227439c1adbc689ae23e8760bacd14
Author: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
Date:   Thu Jun 12 20:50:09 2014 -0400

    Update changelog for 0.6.3-1~precise release

commit a076ccc517e5c2e052542b4c5595a6029ac3223a

But from a brief look at the package uploaded to Debian I noticed that some files are not present in the commit I looked at, while some other files are missing in the uploaded package...

(BTW the first hunk, i.e. the change from Disclaimer: to Comment: is necessary, because the copyright format reserves Disclaimer: "for non-free or contrib packages to state that they are not part of Debian and to explain why (see Debian Policy section 12.5).")

Best regards,

Reply to: