On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:19 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/22/2013 04:48 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >>> In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for? > >> > >> At least avoid pain and reject when uploading to the Debian NEW queue... > > > > I'm sorry, that is downstream Debian pain. > > I agree, it is painful, though it is a necessary pain. Debian has always > been strict with copyright stuff. This should be seen as a freeness Q/A, > so that we make sure everything is 100% free, rather than an annoyance.
A list of copyright holders does nothing to improve the "freeness" of OpenStack. > > It shouldn't be inflicted on > > upstream unless it is generally a useful thing. > > There's no other ways to do things, unfortunately. How would I make sure > a software is free, and released in the correct license, if upstream > doesn't declare it properly? There's been some cases on packages I > wanted to upload, where there was just: > > Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License > > in *.egg-info/PKG-INFO, and that's it. If the upstream authors don't fix > this by adding a clear LICENSE file (with the correct definition of the > MIT License, which is confusing because there's been many of them), then > the package couldn't get in. Lucky, upstream authors of that python > module fixed that, and the package was re-uploaded and validated by the > FTP masters. I fully understand the importance of making it completely clear what the license of a project is and have had to package projects that don't make this clear. Fedora's guidelines on the subject are e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > I'm not saying that this was the case for Trove (the exactitude of the > copyright holder list in debian/copyright is less of an issue), though > I'm just trying to make you understand that you can't just ignore the > issue and say "I don't care, that's Debian's problem". This simply > doesn't work (unless you would prefer OpenStack package to *not* be in > Debian, which I'm sure isn't the case here). I can say "Debian policies that no-one can provide any justification for is Debian's problem". And that's the case with this supposed "Debian requires a complete list of copyright holders" policy. Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev