Bug#686447: Review of debian/copyright for zfs-linux
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> wrote:
>
> This have already been accepted (I saw a 0.6.3 update being accepted into the
> archive a couple of days ago).
How were the licensing and namespace concerns resolved? After two
years of waiting, it would be nice to know the decision criteria for
such important management issues.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
<andreas.cadhalpun@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.).
When I did this code audit, in part to satisfy Debian import
requirements, the debian/copyright file was intentionally broken out
like this to avoid ambiguity and ensure copyright pedigree.
This is important because the downstream Debian sources are often
disjoint or unmergeable from the upstream git repository -- as you
just noticed -- and because there was an upstream conversion from svn
to git that mangled some of the commit history.
> I have CCed the copyright holders of these man pages, to inform them that they have to license them under a DFSG-free license, or they won't be allowed into Debian main.
Why are you making this request? Surely this is the responsibility of
the package maintainers to do this work and maintain an upstream
rapport.
We haven't seen Aron Xu or Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez at the upstream
issue tracker or support lists in more than a year. Conversely, Turbo
Fredriksson is active and should therefore be added to the primary
list of people with Debian FTP upload privileges.
Reply to: