Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
tags 411078 -patch thanks Mohammed Adnène Trojette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when I look for license.terms in the package, I see this: % grep -r license.terms * utils/base64/yencode.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/base64/base64.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/base64/uuencode.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/macosx/QuickTimeTcl3.1/movie.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/BWidget-1.7.0/Makefile.in:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: Removed LGPL license; added Tcl-license terms. utils/http2.4/http.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and And when I have a look at utils/BWidget-1.7.0/LICENSE.txt as suggested by the grep results, I actually find the terms of the Tcl license as stated in Philippe's link. Actually, I have no idea why you think the grep results suggest to look into utils/BWidget-1.7.0/LICENSE.txt for the license terms of files in other subdirectories of utils/ than utils/BWidget-1.7.0/, while the actual text suggests a filename license.terms. This looks to me just like guessing, and it may actually be right. But I do not think that it is possible to resolve that without asking upstream, or finding the relevant files somewhere else. The link posted by Filipus in the initial message point to a project that works on http stuff in tcl, but I think even here we need more hard facts to be able to take this as the license for utils/http2.4/http.tcl - in particular because this is a file with client code, whereas the project the link points to is a httpd. Is it necessary to create a license.terms file here and put it in /usr/share/doc/amsn for instance? Err, no, that would be a bug. The license information should be in debian/copyright, complete, and nowhere else. Isn't is sufficient to ask upstream to correct this in a later release? If we can get clarification from upstream, we can as well put it into the package, but whether this would be etch-ignore I don't know. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Processed: Re: Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tags 411078 -patch Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included Tags were: patch Tags removed: patch thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Frank Küster wrote: tags 411078 -patch thanks utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: Removed LGPL license; added Tcl-license terms. Actually, I have no idea why you think the grep results suggest to look into utils/BWidget-1.7.0/LICENSE.txt for the license terms of files in other subdirectories of utils/ than utils/BWidget-1.7.0/, while the actual text suggests a filename license.terms. This looks to me just like guessing, and it may actually be right. Well, uh, it is not guessing: see utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: [snip] added Tcl-license terms Err, no, that would be a bug. The license information should be in debian/copyright, complete, and nowhere else. That's what I did in the patch I've sent to the bug report. Why did you remove the patch tag? Thanks for you work on this bug, -- Mohammed Adnène Trojette
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
Mohammed Adnène Trojette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Frank Küster wrote: tags 411078 -patch thanks utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: Removed LGPL license; added Tcl-license terms. Actually, I have no idea why you think the grep results suggest to look into utils/BWidget-1.7.0/LICENSE.txt for the license terms of files in other subdirectories of utils/ than utils/BWidget-1.7.0/, while the actual text suggests a filename license.terms. This looks to me just like guessing, and it may actually be right. Well, uh, it is not guessing: see utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: [snip] added Tcl-license terms That only shows that some developer thought that the Tcl license is the right license for some part of BWidget. Looking into the file it seems clear that it applies to the complete BWidget Toolkit, and looking in Changelog shows that the person who made the license change is also the one who initially worked on that part when the project was imported, so I guess we can rely on that. It does not, however, say anything about files outside utils/BWidget-1.7.0/. Err, no, that would be a bug. The license information should be in debian/copyright, complete, and nowhere else. That's what I did in the patch I've sent to the bug report. Why did you remove the patch tag? Because it's not a valid solution to just write in Debian copyright what you *think* the license is. We actually need facts. So far, there is no hint in this bug log that the license that applies to utils/BWidget-1.7.0/* also applies to any file outside this subdirectory. Or well, there's a hint by Filipus what the license could be for the single file that he initially reported (and it's the same license), but as I already wrote I do not think there's enough information to take that as a fact. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Frank Küster wrote: same license), but as I already wrote I do not think there's enough information to take that as a fact. You're right. Thanks for your clarifications. -- Mohammed Adnène Trojette
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
tag 411078 + patch thanks On Fri, Feb 23, 2007, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: Is it necessary to create a license.terms file here and put it in /usr/share/doc/amsn for instance? Isn't is sufficient to ask upstream to correct this in a later release? Is it worth mentioning in README.Debian? Here is a patch mentioning the Tcl-license terms in debian/copyright. -- Mohammed Adnène Trojette diff -u amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/changelog amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/changelog --- amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/changelog +++ amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +amsn (0.95+dfsg2-0.3) unstable; urgency=high + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * High urgency for an RC bug fix. + * Include the terms of the Tcl-license in debian/copyright. +(Closes: #411078) + + -- Mohammed Adnène Trojette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:04:56 +0100 + amsn (0.95+dfsg2-0.2) unstable; urgency=high * Non-maintainer upload diff -u amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/copyright amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/copyright --- amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/copyright +++ amsn-0.95+dfsg2/debian/copyright @@ -10,4 +10,47 @@ -Copyright: +License: This program is released under the GPL version 2, available as /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 on your Debian system. + +The following files and directories are released under the Tcl-license +terms (see below): +utils/base64/base64.tcl +utils/base64/uuencode.tcl +utils/macosx/QuickTimeTcl3.1/movie.tcl +utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ +utils/http2.4/http.tcl + +The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, +and license this software and its documentation for any purpose, provided +that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this +notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, +license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses. +Modifications to this software may be copyrighted by their authors +and need not follow the licensing terms described here, provided that +the new terms are clearly indicated on the first page of each file where +they apply. + +IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR DISTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY +FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES +ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, ITS DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY +DERIVATIVES THEREOF, EVEN IF THE AUTHORS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. + +THE AUTHORS AND DISTRIBUTORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES, +INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, +FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. THIS SOFTWARE +IS PROVIDED ON AN AS IS BASIS, AND THE AUTHORS AND DISTRIBUTORS HAVE +NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR +MODIFICATIONS. + +GOVERNMENT USE: If you are acquiring this software on behalf of the +U.S. government, the Government shall have only Restricted Rights +in the software and related documentation as defined in the Federal +Acquisition Regulations (FARs) in Clause 52.227.19 (c) (2). If you +are acquiring the software on behalf of the Department of Defense, the +software shall be classified as Commercial Computer Software and the +Government shall have only Restricted Rights as defined in Clause +252.227-7013 (c) (1) of DFARs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the +authors grant the U.S. Government and others acting in its behalf +permission to use and distribute the software in accordance with the +terms specified in this license.
Processed: Re: Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 411078 + patch Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included There were no tags set. Tags added: patch thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: Er, what? the authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license doesn't grant to amsn the right to modify? Yes, there is a missing license statement, and that is a serious bug. But I don't understand the claim that the file shouldn't be distributed. Hi, when I look for license.terms in the package, I see this: % grep -r license.terms * utils/base64/yencode.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/base64/base64.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/base64/uuencode.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/macosx/QuickTimeTcl3.1/movie.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/BWidget-1.7.0/Makefile.in:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and redistribution utils/BWidget-1.7.0/ChangeLog: * LICENSE.txt: Removed LGPL license; added Tcl-license terms. utils/http2.4/http.tcl:# See the file license.terms for information on usage and And when I have a look at utils/BWidget-1.7.0/LICENSE.txt as suggested by the grep results, I actually find the terms of the Tcl license as stated in Philippe's link. Thus, the terms are in the package, but not explicitely. Is it necessary to create a license.terms file here and put it in /usr/share/doc/amsn for instance? Isn't is sufficient to ask upstream to correct this in a later release? Is it worth mentioning in README.Debian? -- Mohammed Adnène Trojette
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:19:42PM -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: utils/base64/base64.tcl's copyright notice contains # See the file license.terms for information on usage and # redistribution # of this file, and for a DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES. This license.terms file is not included in amsn. It appears to be the one at http://tclhttpd.cvs.sourceforge.net/tclhttpd/tclhttpd/license.terms?revision=1.4view=markup which contains The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this software and its documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. As the right to modify is not granted to amsn, this shouldn't be distributed in main, but also of course distributing it violates copyright as there's no permission granted to distribute. Er, what? the authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license doesn't grant to amsn the right to modify? Yes, there is a missing license statement, and that is a serious bug. But I don't understand the claim that the file shouldn't be distributed. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
Steve Langasek a écrit : On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:19:42PM -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: utils/base64/base64.tcl's copyright notice contains # See the file license.terms for information on usage and # redistribution # of this file, and for a DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES. This license.terms file is not included in amsn. It appears to be the one at http://tclhttpd.cvs.sourceforge.net/tclhttpd/tclhttpd/license.terms?revision=1.4view=markup which contains The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this software and its documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. As the right to modify is not granted to amsn, this shouldn't be distributed in main, but also of course distributing it violates copyright as there's no permission granted to distribute. Er, what? the authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license doesn't grant to amsn the right to modify? Oh, sorry. this - amsn in its current state. I just meant that developers of amsn don't have the right to modify the file as long as license.terms isn't included. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#411078: license.terms for utils/base64/base64.tcl not included
Package: amsn Version: 0.95+dfsg2-0.2 Severity: serious utils/base64/base64.tcl's copyright notice contains # See the file license.terms for information on usage and # redistribution # of this file, and for a DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES. This license.terms file is not included in amsn. It appears to be the one at http://tclhttpd.cvs.sourceforge.net/tclhttpd/tclhttpd/license.terms?revision=1.4view=markup which contains The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this software and its documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. As the right to modify is not granted to amsn, this shouldn't be distributed in main, but also of course distributing it violates copyright as there's no permission granted to distribute. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
