On 11-12-01 at 11:26am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > the reason why i started this discussion is not because i don't care > about licensing of those files; but that i think - as felipe has > already pointed out - that "properly" documenting those files as is > currently suggested only creates noise. > > my reasoning is, that those generated (but copyrighted) files, are > virtually the same for all packages that use autotools. > assuming that about 40% of all the C/C++ based debian packages use > autotools (that is just a wild guess based on nothing but intuition) > this would eventually suggest that we add the very same information to > about 4000 packages or so (naively interpolating from debtags)
If code is duplicated 4000 times, then licensing of code needs to be stated 4000 times. > i thought that it might be helpful, if we shorten that information to > something like > <snip> > Files: libtool, config.sub, config.guess,... > License: autotools > see /usr/share/doc/licenses/autotools > </snip> > > i'm aware that it might not be that simple, as i haven't followed the > evaluation of the various licenses applied to autotools generated > files. Feel free to file a bug report against base-files. I doubt it will be accepted, because it is not a single license but a range of different licenses carefully applied to various of the autogenerated files. > > If you are lazy and want least possible documentation of autotools, > > then add a single Files section something like this: > > > > Files: configure* > > Makefile* > > *m4* > > config* > > libtool* > > Copyright: 1992-2008, Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > License: GPL-2+ > > > > Extend with "missing, depcomp, etc" and don't give a shit about > > exceptions or more liberal licensing - just treat it all as being > > contaminated with GPL-2+. > > which is a similar suggestion as mine above. > however, i'm not so convinced about the "contaminated with GPL-2+" > argument. Treating them all as GPL-2+ is the very essence of the proposal: Avoids changing base-files. > > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those > > developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool > > that is clearly good enough that you use it. > > hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of > those great tools. even if i was "lazy and [...] treat it all as [...] > GPL-2+" there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work. Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another. > and with my debian hat on, it was not my decision to use those tools; > i only respect upstreams intention. You have the option of repackaging the source with those autogenerated files removed. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers