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

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

Hi Andreas,

Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 00:48:05)
> > 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.

correct, this indeed makes a 'Files: *' stanza necessary or some files will not
be matched.

> 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.
> [...]
> 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]

Okay, I see. Then I agree that merging those stanzas makes things much more
maintainable and readable.

> 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.

Indeed. Thanks, I changed that too.

> 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.

I'll cater for that in a later release.

I noticed something else: when you added tests/passing/traverse.mli as being
licensed under AGPL-3, is it not necessary to paste the full text of the AGPL-3
because the AGPL cannot be found in /usr/share/common-licenses? I added the
text of the AGPL-3 to debian/copyright to fulfill policy § 12.5.

You can find the full diff of the changes in:

I uploaded the fixed package to mentors and would probably need somebody to
upload it for me:


Thank you for your help!

cheers, josch

Reply to: