Using machine-readable copyright files in D-I packages
While building packages that have pending changes, I noticed the newly-introduced lintian warning about no machine-readable debian/copyright file. Fixing this should be easyas long as one *does* find copyrights in the files provided by a given package. For instance: bubulle@sesostris:~/src/debian/debian-installer/trunk/packages/partman-efi(master) $ licensecheck -r --copyright * bubulle@sesostris:~/src/debian/debian-installer/trunk/packages/partman-efi(master) $ What is the recommended practice in such case? Go through the git commit log and pick changes one by one and assign the copyright to the relevant person in the relevant file (which is something that has to be automated in order to be doable)? Just assign the copyright collectively (but to what entity)? Ignore the problem and leave debian/copyright as is? -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using machine-readable copyright files in D-I packages
Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org writes: While building packages that have pending changes, I noticed the newly-introduced lintian warning about no machine-readable debian/copyright file. Fixing this should be easyas long as one *does* find copyrights in the files provided by a given package. For instance: bubulle@sesostris:~/src/debian/debian-installer/trunk/packages/partman-efi(master) $ licensecheck -r --copyright * bubulle@sesostris:~/src/debian/debian-installer/trunk/packages/partman-efi(master) $ What is the recommended practice in such case? Go through the git commit log and pick changes one by one and assign the copyright to the relevant person in the relevant file (which is something that has to be automated in order to be doable)? That would produce a list that is too long, but perhaps that does not really matter -- do we need to care about the fact that someone who has only fixed a spelling mistake almost certainly does not have copyright, because a court would judge that their contribution was insufficiently creative? If all we're worried about is that the list includes all the people that do have copyright, that seems fine to me, but perhaps having people listed who have no standing would make life difficult for lawyers trying to enforce the GPL, so should be avoided -- I'm not sure. Also, it seems fairly likely that someone that makes some very minor contributions to one file will almost always have done something copyrightable elsewhere in the code, so perhaps we'd find that the list of people is pretty accurate, but some of them are getting somewhat inflated lists of files over which they have copyright. Really, I don't see to much problem with lumping the names of anyone that's ever touched the codebase together in one big list, and saying that they are the copyright holders for the whole lot -- unless there are bits with differing licenses, which should be done separately. If anyone needs to care about the finer details, then they can do the work when it's needed. We could include a Comment: nearby pointing out that if anyone finds the need to make the information more granular, patches would be very welcome. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY pgpnOd2xbO8KB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using machine-readable copyright files in D-I packages
Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org (2014-09-07): While building packages that have pending changes, I noticed the newly-introduced lintian warning about no machine-readable debian/copyright file. Ignoring non-problems looks like a good idea. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using machine-readable copyright files in D-I packages
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:35:25AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org (2014-09-07): While building packages that have pending changes, I noticed the newly-introduced lintian warning about no machine-readable debian/copyright file. Ignoring non-problems looks like a good idea. Agreed. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Because heaters aren't purple! -- Catherine Pitt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140907083821.gd24...@einval.com
Re: Using machine-readable copyright files in D-I packages
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org): Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org (2014-09-07): While building packages that have pending changes, I noticed the newly-introduced lintian warning about no machine-readable debian/copyright file. Ignoring non-problems looks like a good idea. Well, I tend to assume that the fact that there is a lintian warning for this shows that in some way the project wants to go the way of machine-readable copyright files. This is also something we enforce quite strongly on new packages, so some effort, if humanly feasible, could be worth it. At least, when another opportunity (such as unrelated changes triggering an upload) appears. I'm fine with not caring about this at all, but I think it's worth exploring the possibility of fixing this for a low cost, if we can. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using machine-readable copyright files in D-I packages
Christian PERRIER wrote: Fixing this should be easyas long as one *does* find copyrights in the files provided by a given package. For instance: bubulle@sesostris:~/src/debian/debian-installer/trunk/packages/partman-efi(master) $ licensecheck -r --copyright * bubulle@sesostris:~/src/debian/debian-installer/trunk/packages/partman-efi(master) $ What is the recommended practice in such case? This package is under the GNU GPL version 2, or any later version at your option. That's a clear statement of the license of every file in the package, unless some file overrides it with its own license statement. Just assign the copyright collectively (but to what entity)? There seems to be no problem with naming any obvious major contributors (the original author of the package for example) and then adding 2007-2012, many Debian contributors ... Which I found in the machine-readable copyright file of debian-policy. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using machine-readable copyright files in D-I packages
Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): What is the recommended practice in such case? This package is under the GNU GPL version 2, or any later version at your option. Sure. License is always easy to find. Which is why I didn't mention it in my post. My only problem|question was about copyright. There seems to be no problem with naming any obvious major contributors (the original author of the package for example) and then adding 2007-2012, many Debian contributors Sounds to be fair, which local adaptations such as including Anton Zinoviev for all partman packages, for instance, as many scripts they use were derived from those he orignally designed...and maybe a few other obvious things here or there. I'll try to do that for next uploads (again: I don't intend to reupload packages for this but more use the opportunity of other uploads). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
