Re: Copyright of debian/*
John Scott wrote... > On Saturday, January 2, 2021 10:30:56 AM EST Matthew Vernon wrote: > > I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable copyright > > format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/* > That's not good practice. You should ask the package maintainer to include > such information in debian/copyright. They would know the history best. Be > sure to check for a wildcard though, like > Files: * > as that could apply to debian/. That was in the upgrading checklist for policy 3.9.3 (2012): | 12.5 | ``debian/copyright`` is no longer required to list the Debian | maintainers involved in the creation of the package (although note | that the requirement to list copyright information is unchanged). Which made me believe it was not mandatory to have an extra stanza for debian/* and the things the maintainer(s) did there. But possibly that's just a misunderstanding. > > What does that mean about the copyright status of debian/* ? If I want > > to re-use a file therein in another package, can I do so? > If the copyright file doesn't specify the license, and there are no comments > in > the files specifying the license, then the maintainer of that package really > should fix that. That leaves the license ambiguous and you may not make any > assumptions about your use of the file. About the license, the matching entry applies, so it's upstream's. Actually I prefer to use the same license as upstream, this just avoids trouble if someone considers a particular combination a problem. About copyright - in the very general I doubt there's much copyrightable stuff in debian/*. And if you really want to go pedantic, you could ask about patches (half-upstream, half-contributor [not necessarily maintainer]). Hopefully nobody will try to do the full discussion here. Christoph signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Fixing dvi2dvi
Christoph Biedl wrote... > Ian Jackson wrote... > > > Is upstream contactable ? Maybe they could be persuaded to drop the > > restriction. Does anyone know if they have been asked ? > > Well, I gave it a try. The address is pretty old but at least there's > still a mail server for it, and a message was not rejected instantly. ... and it worked: "OK, please drop that clause." .oO (If you thought working for Debian means packaging, nope. Most of the time is spent writing message to other people, in order to clarify something) Christoph signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fixing dvi2dvi
Ian Jackson wrote... > Is upstream contactable ? Maybe they could be persuaded to drop the > restriction. Does anyone know if they have been asked ? Well, I gave it a try. The address is pretty old but at least there's still a mail server for it, and a message was not rejected instantly. Christoph signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Fixing dvi2dvi
Hi there, I'd like to fix dvi2dvi which (besides a no-brainer) has a problem | #841056 dvi2dvi: license requires package rename >3. The package name of the modified software must not be ``dvi2dvi'' or >``dvi2dvi-'' where is the version number. Now I could take some advice what in Debian would be considered compliant to that clause. Was it sufficient to rename the binary package only, or should the source package be renamed as well? Also, it would help the users if a transitional package "dvi2dvi" was shipped as well. Technically this should be acceptable since the transitional package was not provided by upstream, so the clause does not apply. But I'd like to hear a second opinion on that. Christoph signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Disclaimers in submitted patches
Hello, every now and then I receive submissions (i.e. patches) by e-mail for packages I maintain. Sometimes a disclaimer¹ is part of that message, a text that denies me from doing certain things with that e-mail - like copying or disclosing the message. In my opinion using such a patch for an upload would violate that clause and therefore might even put the Debian project in jeopardy. Thoughts on that? Christoph ¹ In German, the word Angstklausel is quite common for that, I'm not aware of an English counterpart that describes it as well. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
MIT license confusion
Hello, probably old stuff, but when it comes to licensing terms I prefer to play safe ... In a source package I found a license but as often the name of the license is missing. The licensecheck didn't help either but a search in the net suggests it's an MIT license since the text is the one that can be found here: http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy#MIT_license However, the MIT license text as in libsoftware-license-perl: /usr/share/perl5/Software/License/MIT.pm http://spdx.org/licenses/MIT is quite different. On the other hand, the first license looks a lot like the ISC license with additional clauses like not be used in advertising, and the 'provided as is' half-sentence missing. Now I do know there are a lot of MIT variants around and they've also evolved over time. Mostly out of interest, can you shed some light on this or provide some information, pointers are sufficient? Also, could you suggest a DEP-5 shortname? Of course any string will do (unless it's a reserved name) but I'd prefer something that helps to identify the actual license. Thanks, Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1400523...@msgid.manchmal.in-ulm.de
Re: Unteralterbach visual novel
Thibaut Paumard wrote... IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by you): There was a discussion about hotbabe some years ago ... Globally thinking, since there's a wide span of what pornography contitutes, I was careful with your approach. Some corners in the world might consider that term applies to bible-kjv-text. It has some parts they carefully avoided in sunday school. Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1394479...@msgid.manchmal.in-ulm.de
Re: Unteralterbach visual novel
Paul Tagliamonte wrote... On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: Thibaut Paumard wrote... IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by you): There was a discussion about hotbabe some years ago ... Be careful here; in most Jurisdictions child porn is treated very differently then normal porn (and rightly so). Agreed. It was Thibaut who skipped the child word above and I understood this was by intention. Perhaps he hat something different in mind. Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1394482...@msgid.manchmal.in-ulm.de
