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

Bug#735884: Review of debian/copyright for ocp-indent

Hi Johannes,

On 08.08.2014 20:08, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-08 01:42:33)
In order to help the ftp-masters processing the NEW queue[1], I have
reviewed the debian/copyright file of ocp-indent following the
guidelines at [2].
For this task I obtained the sources from

thanks a lot for taking time for this!

I'm trying to help here, because I'm also waiting for a package in the NEW queue to be processed. If you want to return the favor, you can have a look at the debian/copyright of FFmpeg in:

Attached patch fixes the issues I noticed.
The most important ones were that the licenses for some files were missing.
It is also important to note, that this debian/copyright file does not
reflect the headers in the individual source files, because a license
clarification was obtained from upstream. As it is difficult to notice
this, when reading debian/copyright, I added a comment at the beginning
with a link to the upstream clarification.

The diff is a bit hard to read because you moved section around so I'll
summarize the changes:

You introduced a default copyright for "INRIA", "Jun Furuse" and "OCamlPro"
where I tried to name files individually to match the different copyrights. For
example the only files that are copyright "INRIA" seem to be
src/approx_tokens.ml, src/approx_lexer.mll and src/approx_common.mli so I don't
see how "INRIA" can be in the default block.

There had been no general 'Files: *' stanza and some files (like Makefile etc.) had not been mentioned explicitly. Therefore I created the default stanza with the license mentioned in the LICENSE file. To shorten debian/copyright I merged all the files under this license into this stanza, which thus mentions all copyright holders. But if you prefer to list some of them, e.g. those with copyright INRIA, separately, that is also fine.

Additionally, different files in src/* seem to have different copyright holders
(either just "OCamlPro" as for src/indentConfig.mli or "Jun Furuse" and
"OCamlPro" for the other files). Also, different files there have different
copyright dates. Some files are copyright "2012-2013 OCamlPro" and others are
copyright "2013 OCamlPro". Your default match makes them all "2011-2013

Merging all the copyright holders and dates into the default stanza doesn't mean that all the files are copyrighted by all the listed copyright holders with the same dates, but rather that at least one of them is copyrighted by at least one of these copyright holders with one of the dates.

The copyright format specification makes it clear that whether to merge or not is just a matter of taste: "Since the license of the manual pages is the same as the other files in the package, the last paragraph above could instead be combined with the first paragraph, listing both copyright statements in one Copyright field. Whether to combine paragraphs with the same license is left to the discretion of the author of the debian/copyright file." [a]

As you can see in the link you referenced where upstream clarified the
copyright stanzas [1], upstream agreed on these individual distinctions of
copyright holders and years as they were found in the original debian/copyright

You also found that I did not include the files m4/ocaml.m4,
tests/passing/traverse.mli and configure in my initial debian/copyright. Thanks
for finding them and fixing this! :)

You're welcome.
By the way, I just notice that 'BSD-3-clause' should have been 'BSD-3-Clause' (with capital C) as recommended by the copyright format specification.

On the other hand, configure and m4/ocaml.m4 are not used (or not supposed to
be used and I yet have to fix this) during build time and thus I could just
repack the source tarball and list them under Files-Excluded in

As these have rather permissive licenses, it wouldn't hurt to leave them and just document there existence in debian/copyright.
But if you prefer, it's also fine to remove them via Files-Excluded.

Best regards,

a: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

Reply to: