Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Dear mentors,
the package is now lintian clean. I'd very appreciate sponsorship or
comments. ;-)

thank you very much in advance,
Jack ;-)


JackTheDipper wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnome-color-chooser".
> It's not yet in Debian.
>
> * Package name: gnome-color-chooser
>   Version : 0.2.2-1
>   Upstream Author : JackTheDipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.punk-ass-bitch.org/gnome-color-chooser/
> * License : GPL (v2 or later)
>   Section : gnome
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> gnome-color-chooser - Customize your GNOME desktop!
>
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-color-chooser
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
> contrib non-free
> - dget 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-color-chooser/gnome-color-chooser_0.2.2-1.dsc
>
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
>
> Kind regards,
>  JackTheDipper


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Jon Dowland]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:19:22PM +0200, JackTheDipper wrote:
> - dget 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-color-chooser/gnome-color-chooser_0.2.2-1.dsc

My initial test with debuild did not work:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/wd$ dpkg-source -x gnome-color*dsc
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/wd$ cd gnome-color-chooser-0.2.2/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/wd/gnome-color-chooser-0.2.2$ debuild
fakeroot debian/rules clean
dh_testdir
dh_testroot
rm -f build-stamp
# Add here commands to clean up after the build process.
/usr/bin/make distclean
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/jon/wd/gnome-color-chooser-0.2.2'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `distclean'.  Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jon/wd/gnome-color-chooser-0.2.2'
make: *** [clean] Error 2
debuild: fatal error at line 1237:
fakeroot debian/rules clean failed


-- 
Jon Dowland


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

Jon Dowland schrieb:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:19:22PM +0200, JackTheDipper wrote:
>> - dget 
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-color-chooser/gnome-color-chooser_0.2.2-1.dsc
> 
> My initial test with debuild did not work:

I can confirm this. Your clean target is wrong. With this commented out
I have additional comments (note, that I am not a DD so this is just for
your help:

* You obviously miss all build-depends. Thats the reason why the
configure target fails with missing dependencies. You should try to
build your package in a e.g. pbuilder environment, so that you see what
dependencies your package has.

* debian/rules:
- No need to keep template comments
- What does this ifneq construct do in the config.status
  target? The build process should not make any assumptions on
  what might exist on the build system and should not use
  anything outside of the package (IMHO)
- No need to keep commented debhelpers
- dh_installman seems to be useless as you don't ship a manpage
- there are plenty whitespaces at the end of lines, you should
  remove them
* debian/copyright:
- I don't think that "JackTheDipper" is a valid legal person,
  therefore i consider debian/copyright to be invalid. It may
  be better to contain real names.
- a lot of empty spaces at the end of line
* debian/dirs (and dh_installdirs in rules) seems useless. Directories
will normally be created by the makefiles so this is double effort. But
I can't tell for sure as it does not build.
* debian/changelog:
- Again: I don't think that "JackTheDipper" is a valid legal
  person.
* debian/control:
- Description is invalid. See 3.4 in the debian policy for  
  informations about this.

Regards,

Patrick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Dear mentors,

I just uploaded the newest upstream version and tried to fulfill the
debian policy.
It's now pbuilder and lintian clean.

I'd very appreciate if someone could take a look whether this package is
ok or even upload it to debian.

Thank you very much in advance!


P.S.: Please CC me! ;-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Paul Wise]

On Nov 26, 2007 8:30 AM, JackTheDipper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I just uploaded the newest upstream version and tried to fulfill the
> debian policy.
> It's now pbuilder and lintian clean.

E, I guess the diff.gz is empty because you are upstream? Can I
suggest that you put the debian/ directory in the diff.gz instead of
your upstream tarball?

Anyway, onto the review:

You didn't file an ITP bug and close it in the changelog, please read
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l1

Please move the homepage to a proper field:
http://wiki.debian.org/HomepageFieldHOWTO

debian/copyright points to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, which is a
symlink to GPL-3, and your package seems to be GPL-2 or later.

Please remove cruft from debian/rules and debian/watch that isn't
needed or used.

Might want to install NEWS, THANKS using dh_installdocs

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Thank you very much for your useful suggestions!


Paul Wise wrote:
> E, I guess the diff.gz is empty because you are upstream? Can I
> suggest that you put the debian/ directory in the diff.gz instead of
> your upstream tarball?
>   
Ok, done.

> You didn't file an ITP bug and close it in the changelog, please read
> http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l1
>   
Done. The closes tag has also been taken over by *.changes correctly ;-)

> Please move the homepage to a proper field:
> http://wiki.debian.org/HomepageFieldHOWTO
>   
Done.

> debian/copyright points to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, which is a
> symlink to GPL-3, and your package seems to be GPL-2 or later.
>   
Done. Good eyes! ;-)

> Please remove cruft from debian/rules and debian/watch that isn't
> needed or used.
>
> Might want to install NEWS, THANKS using dh_installdocs
Tried my best to clean them, but I don't want to remove all commented
options as I think that I need them later probably (like debian/watch,
but upstream is changing its host soon).

Again, thank you very much for your help! A new version has just been
uploaded to debian mentors and is waiting for reviewing. ;-)
Jack

P.S.: Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the list ;-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Paul Wise]

On Nov 27, 2007 1:03 AM, JackTheDipper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Again, thank you very much for your help! A new version has just been
> uploaded to debian mentors and is waiting for reviewing. ;-)
> Jack

[please reply directly to the list]

More review:

please spell-check your package description :)

You are missing copyright info from combobox.cc/h, pt.po. The other
.po files need proper copyright info too.

Some lintian warnings:

W: gnome-color-chooser: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser
I: gnome-color-chooser: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key
/usr/share/applications/gnome-color-chooser.desktop:3 Encoding

Some warnings from the new dpkg-shlibs:

Some of these might bugs in some of the -dev packages you use, make
sure that you aren't explicitly linking against any of these
libraries.

dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgnomeuimm-2.6.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgnomemm-2.6.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgnomecanvasmm-2.6.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgconfmm-2.6.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libSM.so.6 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libICE.so.6 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgnomevfsmm-2.6.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libglade-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libpangomm-1.4.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libcairomm-1.0.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libbonoboui-2.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgnomecanvas-2.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libpopt.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libbonobo-2.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libbonobo-activation.so.4 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libart_lgpl_2.so.2 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libatk-1.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libcairo.so.2 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgnomevfs-2.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgconf-2.so.4 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libdl.so.2 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libORBit-2.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with libgthread-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning:
debian/gnome-color-chooser/usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser shouldn't be
linked with librt.so.1 (it uses none of its symbols).
dpkg-

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Paul Wise]

Awesome fan art btw :)

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Paul Wise wrote:
> please spell-check your package description :)
>   
heh, fixed ;-)
> You are missing copyright info from combobox.cc/h, pt.po. The other
> .po files need proper copyright info too.
>   
fixed

> W: gnome-color-chooser: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser
>   
not fixed. I won't add a man page until gnome-color-chooser provides cli
options if this is ok. ;-)

> I: gnome-color-chooser: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key
> /usr/share/applications/gnome-color-chooser.desktop:3 Encoding
>   
fixed.

> Some warnings from the new dpkg-shlibs:
>
> Some of these might bugs in some of the -dev packages you use, make
> sure that you aren't explicitly linking against any of these
> libraries
>   
I'm (now) not linking against any of the mentioned libraries. I guess
the remaining warnings are indeed bugs.

Thanks again for your help!
I uploaded (yesterday) a new package to debian mentors and I'd be glad
if someone finds the time to review it.

Best regards,
Jack ;-)



P.S.:
> Awesome fan art btw  :) 
>   
oh, yeah! I'm very proud of it! :D


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:18:32 +0100
JackTheDipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > W: gnome-color-chooser: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser
> >   
> not fixed. I won't add a man page until gnome-color-chooser provides cli
> options if this is ok. ;-)

No, it is NOT ok.

Write the manpage. Users should not have to run the program to find out
what it does.

-- 

Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/


pgpivXSAQ2mOk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Ok, uploaded a new package containing a manual page.
Just misinterpreted the policy ;-)

Any further suggestions or is that package now ready for distribution?

best regards,
Jack

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:18:32 +0100
> JackTheDipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>> W: gnome-color-chooser: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/gnome-color-chooser
>>>   
>>>   
>> not fixed. I won't add a man page until gnome-color-chooser provides cli
>> options if this is ok. ;-)
>> 
>
> No, it is NOT ok.
>
> Write the manpage. Users should not have to run the program to find out
> what it does.

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

just to produce some traffic as I'm still searching for a sponsor:
the latest version includes a watch entry for the corresponding
sourceforge page. ;-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

updated debian policy from 0.7.2 to 0.7.3
removed ${misc:Depends}from debian/control.
removed debhelper comments in debian/rules and debian/watch.

don't know what i could further do on this package.

any comments or the redemptive upload would be great ;-)

best regards,
Jack ;-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Werner,

On Thursday 06 December 2007 16:56, JackTheDipper wrote:
> any comments or the redemptive upload would be great ;-)

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnomecc/gnome-color-chooser-0.2.3.tar.gz?modtime=1196203255&big_mirror=0
 
and 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-color-chooser/gnome-color-chooser_0.2.3.orig.tar.gz
 
differ - why? You don't have a README.Debian to explain this and I can^wwill 
only guess it's the more recent manpage. The cleanest approach would be to 
use quilt or dpatch and ship the original tar.gz unmodified.

debian/copyright says regarding your packaging "... and is licensed under the 
GPL, see above." - but since August, the 19th, 2007 "GPL" in Debian means 
GPL3 and above mentioned is a GPL2 licence.

I couldn't find your gpg key on a keyserver:

$ gpg --recv-keys 6026BCA8
gpg: requesting key 6026BCA8 from hkp server pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
gpgkeys: key 6026BCA8 not found on keyserver
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0


regards,
Holger


pgpmujuLSk1QK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Hi! Thank you very much for your reply!

Holger Levsen wrote:
> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnomecc/gnome-color-chooser-0.2.3.tar.gz?modtime=1196203255&big_mirror=0
>  
> and 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-color-chooser/gnome-color-chooser_0.2.3.orig.tar.gz
>  
> differ - why? You don't have a README.Debian to explain this and I can^wwill 
> only guess it's the more recent manpage. The cleanest approach would be to 
> use quilt or dpatch and ship the original tar.gz unmodified.
>   
The archives are now synced, they were in general the same but had
different timestamps, don't know what went wrong there ;-) The manual
page was already in the diff.gz. ;-)
-> fixed

> debian/copyright says regarding your packaging "... and is licensed under the 
> GPL, see above." - but since August, the 19th, 2007 "GPL" in Debian means 
> GPL3 and above mentioned is a GPL2 licence.
>   
The packaging is now explicitly using GPL3 and the path to that version
has been added.
-> fixed

> I couldn't find your gpg key on a keyserver:
>
> $ gpg --recv-keys 6026BCA8
> gpg: requesting key 6026BCA8 from hkp server pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
> gpgkeys: key 6026BCA8 not found on keyserver
> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
> gpg: Total number processed: 0
>   
Don't know if this was really needed as the debian server had my public
key to check my uploads, but i exported it to pgp.mit.edu
-> fixed


I hope the package is now ready for being uploaded to debian and it
finds a sponsor soon. ;-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Tuesday 11 December 2007 20:10, JackTheDipper wrote:
> The packaging is now explicitly using GPL3 and the path to that version
> has been added.

Actually, as you are both upstream and maintainer, why dont you use the same 
licence for both? It's definitly less "risky"...


regards,
Holger (a bit in a hurry atm...)


pgpr0H8e13vFJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Holger Levsen wrote:
>> The packaging is now explicitly using GPL3 and the path to that version
>> has been added.
>> 
>
> Actually, as you are both upstream and maintainer, why dont you use the same 
> licence for both? It's definitly less "risky"...
>
>
> regards,
>   Holger (a bit in a hurry atm...)
>   
Oh, it's already planned to change gnomecc's license to GPLv3 with the
next major release. ;-)

The checksums of the sf.net archive and the orig.tar.gz do match, please
redownload _both_ if you want to compare them.
(I uploaded a new archive to sf.net as its content was the same anyway)

Thank you very much for your help!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Werner,

On Tuesday 11 December 2007 22:46, JackTheDipper wrote:
> Oh, it's already planned to change gnomecc's license to GPLv3 with the
> next major release. ;-)

Ok :)

> The checksums of the sf.net archive and the orig.tar.gz do match, please
> redownload _both_ if you want to compare them.
> (I uploaded a new archive to sf.net as its content was the same anyway)

Uh. You should never reupload / publish the same version of a software with 
different contents. If you change _anything_, increase the version number.

Actually I was thinking the same about your debian packaging, but as I have't 
really looked into the package yet, I didn't care at that moment. In future, 
please increase the debian revision whenever you publish your package (even 
on mentors) again, so that sponsors can look at the diff with debdiff easily.

I'm currently offline, so I cannot look at your latest changes at the moment 
anyway. (That's also why I dont bother to explain why you shouldn't upload 
the same version twice. Wikipedia and probably Debian policy have information 
about why.)

Some more notes (based on gnome-color-chooser_0.2.3-1.dsc with the md5sum 
221f12775a27735ee5f03ba6c3a981d6 - a wonderful example why releasing a new 
version without incrementing the version number is bad... :)

./src/gnome-color-chooser.1 says the licence is GPL, which means GPL3, while 
debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... please fix.

./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while debian/copyright 
says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in 
your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok, 
but I doubt it. Either you need to state the different licences in 
debian/copyright or use the same licence (but as they are copyrighted by the 
FSF and others you cant just change the licence OTOH i've also seen this 
files with other licences...).

./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)...

./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says it's 
based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm 
not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the 
result under the GPL(2+).) 

./src/combobox.h has the same issue as combobox.cc

./NEWS is useless since it's empty. Please either fill it with useful content 
or remove it from the Debian package.

And, "btw" this feels strange when reading it:
# This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives
# unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without 
# modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to give 
unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-)

./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced and 
not just refer to the software licence.

./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
# Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
# Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
#
# This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
# be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
# but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality.
# Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.

1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is 
not approriate for legalize.
2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.


On a unrelated (to sponsoring this software) note, I want to remark that I 
dislike how launchpad appearantly (makes software authors) deal(s) with 
translations: the .po files do not contain any info about the person who did 
the translation, they list you as the last translator (which I doubt is just 
not true, but if you speak so many languages, wow!) and some launchpad 
checkout data. The Language-Team pseudo headers list some mailling lists as 
contact though.


Please dont get frustrated with this legalize strictness :-) Solving this now 
saves us from the frustration of a upload to NEW and an instant rejection by 
the ftpmasters - licences and debian/copyright is the first they check, as 
it's the easiest to spot mistakes. 


regards,
Holger

P.S.: Are you subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or should I keep bcc:ing you? 
(I'm subscribed, please don't cc: me.)


pgphqfr8lqBgP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Matthias Julius]

Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> ./src/gnome-color-chooser.1 says the licence is GPL, which means GPL3, while 
> debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... please fix.

Does it really mean GPL3? Do I have to compare the release date of a
software with the publishing date of the various GPL versions to
determine which one applies if it is not specified? I don't think this
is reasonable.

Are now all packages buggy that reference
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead of GPL-2 because GPL now points
to GPL-3? That is probably a large portion of the archive. the GPL
symlink should be removed alltogether to avoid similar issues when the
next GPL version comes along.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

Holger Levsen wrote:
> [..] In future, 
> please increase the debian revision whenever you publish your package (even 
> on mentors) again, so that sponsors can look at the diff with debdiff easily.
>   
ah, ok, good to know (debdiff)! I just thought that debian revision
numbers are only incremented for successfully uploaded/sponsored
packages, will keep this in mind now. ;-)

> [..]
>
> ./src/gnome-color-chooser.1 says the licence is GPL, which means GPL3, while 
> debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... please fix.
>   
fixed, changed manual page license from GPL to GPL2+

> ./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while debian/copyright 
> says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in 
> your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok, 
> but I doubt it. Either you need to state the different licences in 
> debian/copyright or use the same licence (but as they are copyrighted by the 
> FSF and others you cant just change the licence OTOH i've also seen this 
> files with other licences...).
>   
I created these (and almost all other files) with the gpl utility by the
FSF. In this case I used `gpl -am` to create a properly licensed
Makefile.am  at least, that is what the gpl tool is supposed to do.
I don't know how to name this license in debian/copyright now. Any
suggestions?

> ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)...
>   
to be honest, i looked at some other debian source packages (e.g.
nautilus and serpentine) and couldn't find an entry in debian/copyright
for install-sh... so, what would i have to add there?

> ./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says it's 
> based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm 
> not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the 
> result under the GPL(2+).) 
> ./src/combobox.h has the same issue as combobox.cc
>   
IANAL, but I asked in their chatroom and some of them said that this is ok.
The FSF says: "Every version of the LGPL gives you permission to
relicense the code under the corresponding version, or any later
version, of the GPL. In these cases, you can combine the code if you
migrate its license to GPLv3, and use GPLv3 for your own work as well."
source: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-8

As gtkmm's source is licensed under LGPL2+ and not LGPL2.1+, i guess
that relicensing under GPL2+ is ok.

> ./NEWS is useless since it's empty. Please either fill it with useful content 
> or remove it from the Debian package.
>   
done (next upstream version will do the same)

> And, "btw" this feels strange when reading it:
> # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives
> # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without 
> # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
> In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to give 
> unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-)
>   
heh.. well, this file is just created by the FSF gpl utility. I guess it
means a special exception to a personal copyright and I don't think that
"free software" is a concept of law and implies that exceptions ;-) but
I don't know... i thought that using FSF tools consequently to create
license headers would prevent me from having copyright issues later *sigh*

> ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced and 
> not just refer to the software licence.
>   
ok, that will be changed with the next upstream version if this is ok.

> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> #
> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality.
> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.
>
> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is 
> not approriate for legalize.
> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.
>   
It's the same automatically generated file as used by any other
gettextized software i know (like, again, nautilus and serpentine.. or
other GNOME projects), including the license.. and including the "file
file" bug. Are you sure that this is really not suited for Debian main? :(

> On a unrelated (to sponsoring this software) note, I want to remark that I 
> dislike how launchpad appearantly (makes software authors) deal(s) with 
> translations: the .po files do not contain any info about the person who did 
> the translation,
>   
Yes, i mislike its behavior, either. But with it it's very easy for
newcomers to become a translator and i really appreciate the translation
work done for gnome-color-chooser by 

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Jan Beyer]

On 01/08/2008 05:22 PM, JackTheDipper wrote :
>> ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)...
>>   
> to be honest, i looked at some other debian source packages (e.g.
> nautilus and serpentine) and couldn't find an entry in debian/copyright
> for install-sh... so, what would i have to add there?
Do you know about the script licensecheck? It's contained in the devscripts
package. I just stumbled upon it some time ago. Running
$ licensecheck install-sh
gives
  install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like)

If I am not mistaken, you have to cite the whole license anyway in
debian/copyright...

Regards,
Jan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:34:41 +0100
Jan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 01/08/2008 05:22 PM, JackTheDipper wrote :
> >> ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)...
> >>   
> > to be honest, i looked at some other debian source packages (e.g.
> > nautilus and serpentine) and couldn't find an entry in debian/copyright
> > for install-sh... so, what would i have to add there?

Nothing, nless it is modified, then maybe. Typically, upstream, it is:
install-sh -> /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh

(A modified install-sh is rare - if there is a difference it may simply
be an old version rather than a modified script.)

> Do you know about the script licensecheck? It's contained in the devscripts
> package. I just stumbled upon it some time ago. Running
> $ licensecheck install-sh
> gives
>   install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
> 
> If I am not mistaken, you have to cite the whole license anyway in
> debian/copyright...

Not quite. Generated / symlinked files do not need to be included
(otherwise every autotools package would have to declare the BSD
licence.) I suppose it would be nice if licensecheck had an option to
ignore such files but this is easier upstream than in the actual
package because the autotools will convert the upstream symlink into a
real file for obvious reasons.

licensecheck is v.v.useful but it is mostly used for the source
directory.

-- 

Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/


pgpo8BFIGV3fy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

JackTheDipper wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
>   
>> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
>> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
>> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> #
>> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
>> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
>> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality.
>> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.
>>
>> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing 
>> is 
>> not approriate for legalize.
>> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.
>>   
>> 
> It's the same automatically generated file as used by any other
> gettextized software i know (like, again, nautilus and serpentine.. or
> other GNOME projects), including the license.. and including the "file
> file" bug. Are you sure that this is really not suited for Debian main? :(
>   
This is indeed a wide-spread problem. The maintainer of the debian
package of intltool (jordi) has already been notified and a bug against
GNOME's intltool has been filed (
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508320 ).

As I'm not allowed to change the license on my own and due to the fact
that (almost?) all internationalized GNOME projects and many more are
shipping with this file - also the corresponding debian packages - , i
guess, this bug shouldn't prevent this package from being uploaded.

I don't know if a lintian rule would be good to tell all packagers to
fix the license (once a fixed version is available) or if it's enough to
just wait for fixed GNOME projects.


Any other comments on this package or is it ready now?
Werner


P.S.: The mentioned gpl utility is NOT by the FSF but belongs to the
autotools package, sorry (see
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~iam/docs/tutorial.html , section "Invoking
the `gpl' utility" for more information).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:17:59 +0100
JackTheDipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> JackTheDipper wrote:
> > Holger Levsen wrote:
> >   
> >> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
> >> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
> >> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> #
> >> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
> >> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
> >> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext 
> >> functionality.
> >> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.
> >>
> >> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing 
> >> is 
> >> not approriate for legalize.
> >> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.

It is perfectly acceptable in main - that phrase refers to the fact that
the code is licenced, not public domain.

Free software does not have to be freely available in terms of "change
without any restrictions" - changes to GPL software is specifically
allowed ONLY under the strict copyleft restrictions of the GPL.

"change without restriction" would allow GPL software to be made
proprietary, as can be done with public domain code.

If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see
this notice:

# This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
# be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public
# License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext
# functionality.
# Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU
# General Public License and is *not* in the public domain.

This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version.

-- 

Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/


pgpOBPNXzHT4X.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:22:36 +0100
JackTheDipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > ./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while 
> > debian/copyright 
> > says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in 
> > your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok, 

Public domain code is compatible with the GPL but the reverse is not
true. You can include public domain code in any project, free or not.

> I created these (and almost all other files) with the gpl utility by the
> FSF. In this case I used `gpl -am` to create a properly licensed
> Makefile.am  at least, that is what the gpl tool is supposed to do.

If you are the sole copyright holder for these files, it is probably
best to use a genuine GPL notice in the file instead.

> > ./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says 
> > it's 
> > based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm 
> > not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the 
> > result under the GPL(2+).) 

Yes, you can. Again, you cannot do the reverse. LGPL is weaker than GPL
and combining code into one project migrates all code to the strongest
compatible licence. The LGPL and GPL are carefully managed to remain
compatible in this manner.

> IANAL, but I asked in their chatroom and some of them said that this is ok.
> The FSF says: "Every version of the LGPL gives you permission to
> relicense the code under the corresponding version, or any later
> version, of the GPL. In these cases, you can combine the code if you
> migrate its license to GPLv3, and use GPLv3 for your own work as well."
> source: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-8

Correct.

> > And, "btw" this feels strange when reading it:
> > # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives
> > # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without 
> > # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
> > In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to 
> > give 
> > unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-)
> >   
> heh.. well, this file is just created by the FSF gpl utility. I guess it
> means a special exception to a personal copyright and I don't think that
> "free software" is a concept of law and implies that exceptions ;-) but
> I don't know... i thought that using FSF tools consequently to create
> license headers would prevent me from having copyright issues later *sigh*

If it's your own file, put a proper GPL notice in place of this. It
does sound unnecessary.

> > ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced 
> > and 
> > not just refer to the software licence.
> >   
> ok, that will be changed with the next upstream version if this is ok.

Usually, all po files just say "released under the same licence as the
package itself".

-- 

Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/


pgpPPhMyaGujY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Russ Allbery]

Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see
> this notice:
>
> # This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public
> # License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext
> # functionality.
> # Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU
> # General Public License and is *not* in the public domain.
>
> This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with what was clearly upstream's *intent*, but
that notice by itself does not grant any permission to modify that file.
You're assuming that it's covered by the GPL, and I expect upstream is
assuming that too, but the notice doesn't actually *say* that.

I think it's buggy wording rather than a problematic license, but the
wording is buggy.  I expect upstream really intends something more like
the license Automake uses.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Matthias,

On Wednesday 12 December 2007 18:23, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ./src/gnome-color-chooser.1 says the licence is GPL, which means GPL3,
> > while debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... please fix.
>
> Does it really mean GPL3? Do I have to compare the release date of a
> software with the publishing date of the various GPL versions to
> determine which one applies if it is not specified? I don't think this
> is reasonable.

Nobody ever said legalize is reasonable :-) At least, I haven't heard anyone 
yet.

And yes, if you refer to "the GPL" today, it certainly means GPL3. 

Also note, that there are two dates you need to keep in mind: 29 June 2007 was 
the date when http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html was changed and 19 Aug 
2007, when the base-files package was updated in Debian unstable.

> Are now all packages buggy that reference
> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead of GPL-2 because GPL now points
> to GPL-3? 

Yes.

> That is probably a large portion of the archive. 

Yes. Are you volunteering to write a lintian check? Then we can easily add 
file bugs and track them with a usertag.

> the GPL  
> symlink should be removed alltogether to avoid similar issues when the
> next GPL version comes along.

Yes.


regards,
Holger

BTW: If you understand german, I highly recommend to watch 
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2345.en.html - it will be 
streamed and will be available for download too, but later.


pgpC2cBWXjppd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Olivier Berger]

Le jeudi 13 décembre 2007 à 15:06 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :

> And yes, if you refer to "the GPL" today, it certainly means GPL3. 
> 

Somebody said... GNU GPL ?

I'm pretty sure there are other General Public Licenses out there...

My 2 cents,
-- 
Olivier BERGER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ATTENTION : new address)
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
GET/INT at Evry (http://www.int-edu.eu/)
OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:06:27PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> And yes, if you refer to "the GPL" today, it certainly means GPL3. 

Not at all.  Well, at least not completely. ;-)  GNU GPL 3 itself says
about this (section 14):

If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU
General Public License, you may choose any version ever
published by the Free Software Foundation.

(Version 2 says this as well, by the way, in section 9.)

> > Are now all packages buggy that reference
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead of GPL-2 because GPL now
> > points to GPL-3? 
> 
> Yes.

Only if they are "GPL 2 only".  GPL 3 is a valid license for a GPL2+
licensed work.  It might be better to reference both version 2 and 3,
but referencing version 3 is certainly not wrong.

> > the GPL  symlink should be removed alltogether to avoid similar
> > issues when the next GPL version comes along.
> 
> Yes.

Or we could define what it should be used for. :-)  I think it is
reasonable to use it to refer to the latest version of the license for
GPL*+ licensed programs.  As in:

This program is released under the GNU General Public License,
version 2 or any later version.  Version 2 can be found in
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 ; The latest version of the
license can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL .

Or something like that.

IANAL, TINLA.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Neil Williams]

Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:06:27PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>> Are now all packages buggy that reference
>>> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead of GPL-2 because GPL now
>>> points to GPL-3? 
>> Yes.
> 
> Only if they are "GPL 2 only".  GPL 3 is a valid license for a GPL2+
> licensed work.  It might be better to reference both version 2 and 3,
> but referencing version 3 is certainly not wrong.

The ambiguity of using the GPL symlink is not useful - particularly with
respect to libraries. It is all too easy to re-license a formerly GPL-2+
library under GPL-3+ (using the machine-operable nomenclature for
debian/copyright) and thereby make it impossible for Debian to
distribute an application that uses the library but which contains GPL-2
only code.

debian/copyright should be unambiguous. IMHO, packages that specify
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL are buggy if either:
1. GPL-2 only code is included in the package
2. GPL-2 only code is included in a *linked* package where linked is
intended in a strict meaning of "linked by a runtime dependency" on a
shared library. These are probably minor or normal bugs but bugs all the
same.

This list is principally about new packages and new packages should do
everything possible to avoid ambiguities in debian/copyright. The fact
that existing packages may do things one way is no excuse for not doing
things TheRightWay(TM) in new packages.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Russ Allbery]

Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The ambiguity of using the GPL symlink is not useful - particularly with
> respect to libraries. It is all too easy to re-license a formerly GPL-2+
> library under GPL-3+ (using the machine-operable nomenclature for
> debian/copyright) and thereby make it impossible for Debian to
> distribute an application that uses the library but which contains GPL-2
> only code.

Agreed.  I think debian/copyright should always refer to the exact version
of the GPL that the package says it's covered under and then document
whether only that version is permissable or whether the "or later" part is
available.  (The exception is GPL v1, which isn't in common-licenses; in
that case, right now, I think the best course of action is to treat the
software as under GPL v2 for Debian's purposes.  There isn't a lot of
software in this category.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Friday 14 December 2007 00:37, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:06:27PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > And yes, if you refer to "the GPL" today, it certainly means GPL3.
> Not at all.  Well, at least not completely. ;-)  GNU GPL 3 itself says
> about this (section 14):

Wow, thanks for the info.

> > > Are now all packages buggy that reference
> > > /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL instead of GPL-2 because GPL now
> > > points to GPL-3?
> > Yes.
> Only if they are "GPL 2 only".  

Right. I ment that ;) (But thats meaningless, in legalize the words matter.)

> GPL 3 is a valid license for a GPL2+ 
> licensed work.  It might be better to reference both version 2 and 3,
> but referencing version 3 is certainly not wrong.

It "just" changes the meaning... ;)


Thanks too,
Holger


pgpiVRwbGakWI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Matthias Julius]

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Agreed.  I think debian/copyright should always refer to the exact version
> of the GPL that the package says it's covered under and then document
> whether only that version is permissable or whether the "or later" part is
> available.  (The exception is GPL v1, which isn't in common-licenses; in
> that case, right now, I think the best course of action is to treat the
> software as under GPL v2 for Debian's purposes.  There isn't a lot of
> software in this category.)

I think the best way is to include the license text in
debian/copyright just like any other license that is not in
common-licenses.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Russ Allbery]

Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Agreed.  I think debian/copyright should always refer to the exact
>> version of the GPL that the package says it's covered under and then
>> document whether only that version is permissable or whether the "or
>> later" part is available.  (The exception is GPL v1, which isn't in
>> common-licenses; in that case, right now, I think the best course of
>> action is to treat the software as under GPL v2 for Debian's purposes.
>> There isn't a lot of software in this category.)

> I think the best way is to include the license text in debian/copyright
> just like any other license that is not in common-licenses.

We probably don't really want to include a copy of the GPLv1 in every Perl
package.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Bas Wijnen wrote:


RMS does this, in his attempts to move people to use the newest version
of the GPL.  He has a point, but if Debian would fully agree with it, I
suppose we would relicense all GPL works as GPL version 3 or later when
possible.  


I am not a lawyer (and you'll need a lawyer knowing the laws in many 
countries) but I am not sure that Debian or "you" (who ever that mean) 
can change the licence from GPLv2 to GPLv3 without the explicit consent 
of the copyright owner (which is usually not "Debian", and perhaps not 
the FSF, except for core GNU packages like GCC etc...)


I understand that the GPLv2 or later is applicable to the user, who can 
use the software under GPLv3 (for example).


But I am really not a lawyer.

In short, I am not at all sure that Debian could legally change all 
GPLv2+ licensed software to GPLv3. Perhaps you need to be the copyright 
owner to do that.


IANAL

Regards.

--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Bas Wijnen]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:04:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think the best way is to include the license text in debian/copyright
> > just like any other license that is not in common-licenses.
> 
> We probably don't really want to include a copy of the GPLv1 in every Perl
> package.

If the license is used in many packages, we should add it to
common-licenses.  If it isn't, then it should be no problem to include
it in debian/copyright.

Technical arguments are very weak for arguing that we should remove a
choice from our users IMO.  The only valid argument I can think of is
"it's better for free software if they can't choose GPL-1."  Arguing
that must be done on philosophical grounds.

RMS does this, in his attempts to move people to use the newest version
of the GPL.  He has a point, but if Debian would fully agree with it, I
suppose we would relicense all GPL works as GPL version 3 or later when
possible.  Since we don't, I don't see why we should change "GPL 1 or
later" to "GPL 2 or later".  Certainly not on the ground of it being too
hard to think of how to write down the licensing terms...

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Bas Wijnen]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:21:41PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
>>
>> RMS does this, in his attempts to move people to use the newest version
>> of the GPL.  He has a point, but if Debian would fully agree with it, I
>> suppose we would relicense all GPL works as GPL version 3 or later when
>> possible.  
>
> I am not a lawyer (and you'll need a lawyer knowing the laws in many 
> countries)

I'm no lawyer either.

> but I am not sure that Debian or "you" (who ever that mean)

That means the person or entity who has legally acquired the software
somehow, under the terms of GPL-2+, and is distributing it to others.
This distribution is permitted only under the terms of the license(s).

> can change the licence from GPLv2 to GPLv3 without the explicit
> consent of the copyright owner

No, changing from GPL-2 to GPL-3 is not allowed for anyone except the
copyright holder.  This is because the GPL-3 choice was not offered to
the distributor.  However, if the software was licensed using GPL-2+,
then GPL-3 was indeed a choice, as were all (currently hypothetical)
later versions.

In that case that person can indeed do that.  Let's say I have an old
copy of Emacs, for which the FSF is the copyright holder.  I received it
with a GPL-2+ license.  That means I personally may choose to accept
GPL-2 or GPL-3 (and when more versions are released, later versions as
well).  Assume that I dislike GPL-2, and choose to accept only GPL-3,
and theoretically also later versions.  Then I can use this GPL-3 to be
allowed to distribute the software to you.  Since I didn't accept GPL-2,
I am not offering you that choice, either.

The program is really multiply-licensed.  Any user may choose to accept
any or several of the licenses.  Each license on its own permits
distribution, and so you can distribute it under that license only, if
you want.

"Or later" is really just a series of licenses, which you can also
choose to accept and use for distribution (this is allowed, because they
will be "similar in spirit" to the other versions).

> I understand that the GPLv2 or later is applicable to the user, who
> can use the software under GPLv3 (for example).

Yes.  But this is not some magical "end-user".  Anyone who uses or
distributes the software may choose to accept or decline the offered
licenses.  When distributing, the distributor may choose to use only
part of the licenses that were offered to them for distribution.

Adding new acceptable licenses can only be done by the copyright holder
(for example, going from GPL-2 to GPL-2+).  Removing them can be done by
anyone who distributes the software.  But only for the people they
distribute to, of course.  If users can get the same software somewhere
else under a different license, then that license is also a valid option
for them.

> In short, I am not at all sure that Debian could legally change all
> GPLv2+ licensed software to GPLv3. Perhaps you need to be the
> copyright owner to do that.

We can.  But I don't think we want to.

Again, IANAL, TINLA.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: yes, GPL means GPL3 today... (Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser)

[Russ Allbery]

Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:04:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>>> I think the best way is to include the license text in
>>> debian/copyright just like any other license that is not in
>>> common-licenses.

>> We probably don't really want to include a copy of the GPLv1 in every
>> Perl package.

> If the license is used in many packages, we should add it to
> common-licenses.  If it isn't, then it should be no problem to include
> it in debian/copyright.

It depends on what you mean by "used."  I really doubt that most of the
Perl authors really care one way or the other, but Perl's license says GPL
v1 or later, and most of the Perl packages say "same license as Perl."

So my original statement that not many packages are in that situation is
kind of true and kind of not, depending on how you feel about the Perl
situation.  (I don't know of any packages that say *only* GPL v1.)

Anyway, if you feel strongly about this, you should probably say something
in Bug#436105, since so far the opinions have been that adding it isn't
worthwhile.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]