Re: DEP-5 (copyright file format) ... gap with practice

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi here is an example:

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:48:38PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
...
> $ debmake -k
...
=== debian/copyright checked for 90 data ===
Pattern #00: *
  File: data/symbol.txt
- GPL-2+
+ BSD-3-Clause

Pattern #00: *
  File: depcomp
config.sub
m4/intltool.m4
config.guess
compile
py-compile
missing
- GPL-2+
+ GPL-2.0+ with autoconf exception

Pattern #00: *
  File: ltmain.sh
- GPL-2+
+ GPL-2.0+ with libtool exception

Pattern #00: *
  File: icons/Makefile.am
data/Makefile.am
- GPL-2+
+ LGPL-2.0+

Pattern #00: *
  File: install-sh
- GPL-2+
+ MIT

Pattern #00: *
  File: m4/intlmacosx.m4
m4/lib-prefix.m4
m4/po.m4
m4/ltoptions.m4
po/Makefile.in.in
src/Makefile.in
m4/Makefile.in
config.rpath
icons/Makefile.in
Makefile.in
aclocal.m4
m4/lt~obsolete.m4
m4/gettext.m4
setup/Makefile.in
m4/ltsugar.m4
m4/ltversion.m4
m4/lib-link.m4
m4/iconv.m4
m4/nls.m4
m4/lib-ld.m4
data/Makefile.in
configure
m4/progtest.m4
INSTALL
m4/libtool.m4
- GPL-2+
+ PERMISSIVE

Pattern #00: *
  File: po/zh_CN.po
po/ko.po
- GPL-2+
+ _SAME_

... Maybe I need to update some of my old packages but that is a lot of
thankless work...

Osamu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140910145441.GA11298@goofy.local

Re: DEP-5 (copyright file format) ... gap with practice

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:20:06AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> How about using your snippet to improve our packaging work-flows
> instead? For instance, we can have a lintian check that verifies if
> those files are present in the source package and emit a warning if they
> are not listed (with the correct license) in debian/copyright.
  ^^

The debmake command (in python) offers such copyright file verification
against the current source files by running it in the source tree as.

$ debmake -k

Its manpage goes as:
 -k, --kludge
 compare the debian/copyright file with the source and exit.

 The debian/copyright file must be organized to list the generic
 file patterns before the specific exceptions.

 ·   -k: basic output style

 ·   -kk: verbose output style

It will most likely give you a nice list of such files noting changes of
license and missing licenses.

I am wondering if it is really useful or not for the case of
auto-generated permissive files.  If dropping those files is the
accepted standard behavior (even if it is not codified after this
discussion), I am thinking of dropping those files from the emitted
default output list of -k and template copyright file it generates
unless specifically asked.

Osamu

PS: 
The copyright phrase parser of the debmake command is much tighter than
the licensecheck (in perl) one.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140910144838.GB8886@goofy.local

Re: DEP-5 (copyright file format) ... gap with practice

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:01:42AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> How about - instead of codifying into Polict that some licensing is ok 
> to ignore (which sounds very wrong to me) we instead recognize that some 
> pattern of files are very commonly the same across packages: Add a DEP-5 
> snippet to /usr/share/common-licenses that is always assumed included in 
> debian/copyright of any package.
> 
> Concretely I propose the attached file for that.

Thanks a lot for your snippet!, I find it very helpful.

OTOH, the proposal of shipping it under /usr/share/common-licenses/
violates the self-containedness of copyright information, which is a
nice property to have.  (To some extent we already violate that property
by shipping some full license texts under /usr/share/common-licenses/,
but at least the information about the mapping file<->license names is
currently expected to be available in the packages themselves.)

How about using your snippet to improve our packaging work-flows
instead? For instance, we can have a lintian check that verifies if
those files are present in the source package and emit a warning if they
are not listed (with the correct license) in debian/copyright.

Note that, thanks to the semantics of DEP-5, it is possible to do this
properly and avoid false positives also in the few cases where the files
are present in the source package but do not need explicit mention
(e.g., because their license matches the more general license of the
rest of the package).

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DEP-5 (copyright file format) ... gap with practice

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-09-10 06:38:21)
> Osamu Aoki  writes:
>
>> It may be good to have a set of specifically defined file types for
>> exclusion in DEP-5 policy.  Then we can skip listing them in the
>> copyright file.  The helper script can generate a template for the
>> copyright file in line with the actual practice and not to contradict
>> with the DEP-5 policy.
>
> The general rule of thumb appears to be that, provided that the files 
> are DFSG-free and don't pose any surprises or conflicts, there's no 
> need to exhaustively document any source files that are only used as 
> part of the build system and don't contribute code to the binary 
> package.
> 
> I've wanted to document this explicitly in Policy for a while, but the 
> blocker is that I've never been able to get anyone to commit to a 
> clear enough rule that it felt like something we could put in Policy.  
> For example, I'm not sure if it applies to the build system in 
> general, or if it's specifically for Autoconf, Automake, Libtool, and 
> friends, which have very well-known and standard license behavior and 
> are common across vast swaths of the archive.
> 
> If we had a concrete rule, we could document it in Policy.
> 
> Personally, I just document the licenses of all of those files in my 
> debian/copyright files, but I also automated that (with a truly awful 
> and horrible Perl script).  And I'm not sure that documentation is 
> really of much use.

I do the same: document all those licenses in debian/copyright.  And 
also noticed a strong pattern of those files when doing that across 
maybe 50 packages.

How about - instead of codifying into Polict that some licensing is ok 
to ignore (which sounds very wrong to me) we instead recognize that some 
pattern of files are very commonly the same across packages: Add a DEP-5 
snippet to /usr/share/common-licenses that is always assumed included in 
debian/copyright of any package.

Concretely I propose the attached file for that.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

Files: lt*.m4
Copyright: 2004-2005,2007-2009, Free Software Foundation
License: GAP

Files: aclocal.m4
 config.guess
 config.sub
 compile
 depcomp
 missing
Copyright: Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License: GPL-2+ with Autoconf exception
 As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
 distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
 configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
 the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

Files: ltmain.sh
 libtool.m4
Copyright: Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception
 As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
 distribute this file as part of a program or library that is built
 using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the same
 distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

Files: configure
Copyright: Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License: GAP~configure

Files: install-sh
Copyright: X Consortium
License: Expat~X with X exception
 Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall
 not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or
 other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
 from the X Consortium.

License: GPL-2+
 This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
 under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
 Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
 later version.
 .
 This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
 WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
 General Public License for more details.
Comment:
 On Debian systems the 'GNU General Public License' version 2 is located
 in '/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2'.
 .
 You should have received a copy of the 'GNU General Public License'
 along with this program.  If not, see .

License: Expat~X
 Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
 copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
 "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
 without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
 distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
 permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
 the following conditions:
 .
 The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
 in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
 .
 THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
 M