Bug#775588: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#775588: darcs: Missing copyright information
Hi, How about lowering the severity of this bug? I just received this: fusionforge 5.3.2+20141104-3 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2015-03-02 It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs: 775588: darcs: Missing copyright information Cheers! Sylvain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#775588: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#775588: darcs: Missing copyright information
On 2015-01-18 15:09, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Well, that’s how the files are distributed to Debian. But that doesn’t
> mean that Debian cannot re-license them all under the GPL... At least I
> thought that BSD code can generally be relicensed under the GPL.
Oh, now I understand what you mean.
What you're thinking of it compatibility, and yes, the BSD licenses are
considered compatible to the GPL, so GPL code can link to BSD code (and
be distributed together, etc.).
But only the current copyright holders have the power to relicense the
work, so the sha2.{c,h} files remain BSD no matter where they are included.
Regards,
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#775588: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#775588: darcs: Missing copyright information
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 18.01.2015, 14:49 +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner:
> Perhaps I misunderstood something, but to be clear: some files are
> distributed under the GPL, and some under a BSD license. The combination
> thereof doesn't change this, there is no dual-licensing or
> license-mixing here.
Well, that’s how the files are distributed to Debian. But that doesn’t
mean that Debian cannot re-license them all under the GPL... At least I
thought that BSD code can generally be relicensed under the GPL.
> To emphasize this, I would
>
> * add a new Files: section for the BSD sha2.{c,h} files, and
>
> * either create a new Files: section for SHA256.hs, or
>
> * merge it with the Files: *, if the referred GPL version is
> determined to be the same.
Patches welcome. My personal motivation to spend a significant amount of
time with copy’n’paste is low.
(Maybe I should just stay quiet and hope someone else takes care of it.)
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F
JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#775588: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#775588: darcs: Missing copyright information
On 2015-01-18 13:52, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 17.01.2015, 19:39 +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner:
>> The copyright information and the license terms for the files
>>
>> src/Crypt/*
>>
>> is missing from debian/copyright.
>
> I wonder: Since it is a mix of GPL and BSD, we are effectively
> distributing it under the GPL. Shouldn’t be be sufficient to stat that
> in a single
>
> Files: *
>
> section?
Perhaps I misunderstood something, but to be clear: some files are
distributed under the GPL, and some under a BSD license. The combination
thereof doesn't change this, there is no dual-licensing or
license-mixing here. To emphasize this, I would
* add a new Files: section for the BSD sha2.{c,h} files, and
* either create a new Files: section for SHA256.hs, or
* merge it with the Files: *, if the referred GPL version is
determined to be the same.
As mentioned, haskel-hashed-storage already does something similar:
http://sources.debian.net/src/haskell-hashed-storage/0.5.10-4/debian/copyright/#L32
The only thing that's not clear to be is which specific version of the
GPL is being referred to in SHA256.hs, so one would probably have to ask
the author.
Regards,
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#775588: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#775588: darcs: Missing copyright information
Hi, Am Samstag, den 17.01.2015, 19:39 +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner: > The copyright information and the license terms for the files > > src/Crypt/* > > is missing from debian/copyright. One file is "GPL" (no > version specified, and the others are BSD-3-clause licensed. > > Package haskell-hashed-storage has these files, too. The required > information can simply be copied from there. thanks for the report. @DHG: Do we have a volunteer to do the buerocracy and update debian/copyright. I wonder: Since it is a mix of GPL and BSD, we are effectively distributing it under the GPL. Shouldn’t be be sufficient to stat that in a single Files: * section? We’d still have to tediously collect all copyright, but at least not check dozends of files for minor spelling differences in their Expat/BSD/MIT license. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#775588: darcs: Missing copyright information
Source: darcs Version: 2.8.5-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy § 12.5 Hi, The copyright information and the license terms for the files src/Crypt/* is missing from debian/copyright. One file is "GPL" (no version specified, and the others are BSD-3-clause licensed. Package haskell-hashed-storage has these files, too. The required information can simply be copied from there. Regards, Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
