On 2014-09-17 23:57+0100 Andrew Ross wrote: > > Alan, > > My reading of the bug report was different to yours. There are a > number of files (e.g. examples which contain licenses different to > the LGPL. The debian/copyright file is supposed to contain mention > of ALL licenses which are applied to any part of the software. Some > (but not all) of the examples are GPL rather than LGPL.
Hmm. That is true but that issue should be easy to fix, by using the following find command: software@raven> find . -type f |grep -v .git \ |xargs grep -li copyright| xargs grep -Li "public license" |wc -l 109 So there are 109 such files but presumably some of them are false positives, and when you replace "wc -l" by "xargs grep -i copyright -A20" (or whatever command seems reasonable to you), you will be able to figure out which of those 109 should be mentioned in Copyright. However, I think you should also on general grounds include wording in Copyright specifically stating all files in the source code have the exact LGPL license terms in that file except for a list of exceptions that you (in the ~109 above) and I (assuming I switch from the current default LGPL to the specific openBSD documentation license for the doxygen-generated files) do need to refine. His report did specifically mentioned some doxygen-generated files that had some non-lgpl copyright info in them . But this is strong evidence of his complete misunderstanding of doxygen-generated files. Roughly a third of those are source listings in html form, and they necessarily include all the source text (i.e., from some of the 109 above) and therefore mention all the copyright notices for that source code. But that obviously has nothing to do with the actual generated file copyright which is a completely different matter! Look up the list of his bug reports. There are all similar to the one for PLplot so I think he has put together a script that blindly looks for all source code files that have the copyright word in them, and then files rather unintelligent reports (at least in the doxygen-generated case) about copyright inconsistencies he finds for those files. So my semi-facetious guess is he will claim when I use the openBSD copyright text for doxygen-generated files even more copyright "inconsistencies" because those files (when reporting source) will have LGPL text in them as well as that openBSD documentation text. At which point, he will have convincingly demonstrated he does not know the difference between documentation license and the license for the code quoted by that documentation. At which point, his "bug report" for PLplot should be declared spam. :-) Alan __________________________ Alan W. Irwin Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca). Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net); and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net). __________________________ Linux-powered Science __________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
