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:
Copyright: Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC.
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
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:
Author: Darik Horn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu Jun 12 20:50:09 2014 -0400
Update changelog for 0.6.3-1~precise release
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).")