Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 14:53 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The current DEP5 draft says: * **`Files`** * Required for all but the first paragraph. If omitted from the first paragraph, this is equivalent to a value of '*'. * Syntax: white space separated list * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license and copyright specified in this paragraph. See File patterns below. Unless there are objections, I am going to apply the attached patch to the DEP5 spec. It's a tiny bit different from what I originally proposed, but should achieve the mission of getting rid of the optionality of Files: *. === modified file 'dep5.mdwn' --- dep5.mdwn 2010-09-13 13:45:36 + +++ dep5.mdwn 2010-09-22 15:48:43 + @@ -179,9 +179,7 @@ applies to all files and lists all applicable copyrights and licenses. * **`Files`** - * Required for all but the first paragraph. - If omitted from the first paragraph, - this is equivalent to a value of '*'. + * Required (not in header paragraph). * Syntax: white space separated list * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license and copyright specified in this paragraph. See File patterns below.
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:53:47PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The current DEP5 draft says: * **`Files`** * Required for all but the first paragraph. If omitted from the first paragraph, this is equivalent to a value of '*'. * Syntax: white space separated list * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license and copyright specified in this paragraph. See File patterns below. Does anyone oppose if I remove the If omitted... sentence? I see no reason to make the format unnecessarily complicated by having it optional. In other words, I propose to make the Files: field mandatory in all paragraphs except the first (header) one, where it is not allowed at all. Hmm. First paragraph means different things in the quoted text and your agument below it: First non-header paragraph vs. First pragraph including the header. I do understand your argument - this is just a mild warning: similar confusion might occur (or already exist?) at other places. Regarding your proposal: I found it easier readable when omitting a catch-all Files: section, so would prefer to keep it. That said, it is not high on my list, so am probably easily convinced to let go of this standpoint. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The current DEP5 draft says: * **`Files`** * Required for all but the first paragraph. If omitted from the first paragraph, this is equivalent to a value of '*'. * Syntax: white space separated list * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license and copyright specified in this paragraph. See File patterns below. Does anyone oppose if I remove the If omitted... sentence? I see no reason to make the format unnecessarily complicated by having it optional. In other words, I propose to make the Files: field mandatory in all paragraphs except the first (header) one, where it is not allowed at all. Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to all files would be an untruth. I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files. manoj -- A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation. C.E. Ayres Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sk1dprbt@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The current DEP5 draft says: * **`Files`** * Required for all but the first paragraph. If omitted from the first paragraph, this is equivalent to a value of '*'. * Syntax: white space separated list * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license and copyright specified in this paragraph. See File patterns below. Does anyone oppose if I remove the If omitted... sentence? I see no reason to make the format unnecessarily complicated by having it optional. In other words, I propose to make the Files: field mandatory in all paragraphs except the first (header) one, where it is not allowed at all. Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to all files would be an untruth. (Or are we expanding the requirements for copyright files to map copyright notices to files in the source package?) I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files. manoj -- Though I'll admit readability suffers slightly... --Larry Wall in 2...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87occ1pr09@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:53:47 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * **`Files`** * Required for all but the first paragraph. If omitted from the first paragraph, this is equivalent to a value of '*'. Does anyone oppose if I remove the If omitted... sentence? I see no reason to make the format unnecessarily complicated by having it optional. Agreed. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: The Mamas The Papas: Dancing In The Street signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to all files would be an untruth. (Or are we expanding the requirements for copyright files to map copyright notices to files in the source package?) There is a consensus, as far as I can see, to allow the first (header) paragraph to have Copyright and License fields that will apply to the package as a whole, rather than to each file. This is an upcoming change that is in the pipeline (but I don't want to make all changes at once). I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files. On the other hand, this means a paragraph where the Files field is missing by mistake will be interpreted wrongly. I find putting the information in the header paragraph to be cleaner, but I admit it is a subtle point. It's better to be explicit when possible, to allow errors to be noticed easier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1284397783.2308.58.ca...@havelock
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:59:34AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The current DEP5 draft says: * **`Files`** * Required for all but the first paragraph. If omitted from the first paragraph, this is equivalent to a value of '*'. * Syntax: white space separated list * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license and copyright specified in this paragraph. See File patterns below. Does anyone oppose if I remove the If omitted... sentence? I see no reason to make the format unnecessarily complicated by having it optional. In other words, I propose to make the Files: field mandatory in all paragraphs except the first (header) one, where it is not allowed at all. Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to all files would be an untruth. Is this question any different from what I responded to on August 13th? Here is, I believe, an example of what you ask for: Copyright: 2009, John Doe License: GPL-2 Verbatim license from source bla bla with reference to common-licenses With Lars' proposal (and allowed now too, but not mandated) it would look like this: Files: * Copyright: 2009, John Doe License: GPL-2 Verbatim license from source bla bla with reference to common-licenses I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files. Hmm. Interesting indeed! Yes, this is actually one thing that I silently found relief in when the ability to drop the Files: * line for first (non-header) section was introduced: Until then I felt slightly awkward about stating that _all_ files had a certain license, when in fact I knew for sure that only some of them explicitly stated copyright and licensing. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to all files would be an untruth. (Or are we expanding the requirements for copyright files to map copyright notices to files in the source package?) There is a consensus, as far as I can see, to allow the first (header) paragraph to have Copyright and License fields that will apply to the package as a whole, rather than to each file. This is an upcoming change that is in the pipeline (but I don't want to make all changes at once). As far as I know, I don't have a single package for which a copyright field applies 6to all files in the source package (I might have missed one, but I think not). I don't think I have a copyright notice that applies to a package as a whole, but I am not a lawyer. If a source package is an aggregated work, with bits of the package coming from different sources and authors, not all copyright notices apply to the whole package. In such a case, how can I not have, umm, the first paragraph? :-) I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files. On the other hand, this means a paragraph where the Files field is missing by mistake will be interpreted wrongly. I find putting the information in the header paragraph to be cleaner, but I admit it is a subtle point. It's better to be explicit when possible, to allow errors to be noticed easier. Can we explicitly specify a way of saying that we wish to make no statement mapping a copyright or license field to any file? Say, by saying File: UNSPECIFIED or something? manoj -- Quantity is no substitute for quality, but its the only one we've got. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hbhtp5xc@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:59:34AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The current DEP5 draft says: * **`Files`** * Required for all but the first paragraph. If omitted from the first paragraph, this is equivalent to a value of '*'. * Syntax: white space separated list * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license and copyright specified in this paragraph. See File patterns below. Does anyone oppose if I remove the If omitted... sentence? I see no reason to make the format unnecessarily complicated by having it optional. In other words, I propose to make the Files: field mandatory in all paragraphs except the first (header) one, where it is not allowed at all. Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to all files would be an untruth. Is this question any different from what I responded to on August 13th? The question is not very different, but then, as now, the anser raised some concerns about spreading misinformation. Here is, I believe, an example of what you ask for: Copyright: 2009, John Doe License: GPL-2 Verbatim license from source bla bla with reference to common-licenses With Lars' proposal (and allowed now too, but not mandated) it would look like this: Files: * Copyright: 2009, John Doe License: GPL-2 Verbatim license from source bla bla with reference to common-licenses And if this copyright notice does not apply to all files, I think this is an incorrect statement. I would prefer that the format we are creating does not force me to incorrectly imply that the copyright notice applies to all files in the package. I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files. Hmm. Interesting indeed! Yes, this is actually one thing that I silently found relief in when the ability to drop the Files: * line for first (non-header) section was introduced: Until then I felt slightly awkward about stating that _all_ files had a certain license, when in fact I knew for sure that only some of them explicitly stated copyright and licensing. Or when I know for sure some files specified a *different* copyright notice, but I do not want to keep track of which files these were, and keep the list updated. manoj -- Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now? Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwxdp5x9@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@ieee.org writes: On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to all files would be an untruth. (Or are we expanding the requirements for copyright files to map copyright notices to files in the source package?) There is a consensus, as far as I can see, to allow the first (header) paragraph to have Copyright and License fields that will apply to the package as a whole, rather than to each file. This is an upcoming change that is in the pipeline (but I don't want to make all changes at once). As far as I know, I don't have a single package for which a copyright field applies 6to all files in the source package (I might have missed one, but I think not). I don't think I have a copyright notice that applies to a package as a whole, but I am not a lawyer. If a source package is an aggregated work, with bits of the package coming from different sources and authors, not all copyright notices apply to the whole package. In such a case, how can I not have, umm, the first paragraph? :-) This is similar to the issue that prompted the discussion that Lars is referring to. I believe that once that change is made, you can achieve your goal by having a debian/copyright file with only one paragraph, with License and Copyright fields in that paragraph. That will present license and copyright information about the entire package without making any statements about specific files. If you want to add subsequent paragraphs about specific files, you can also do that. As long as you have no Files: * paragraph, this should have the semantics you desire. I agree with requiring the Files field in each paragraph for per-file license information, with a note in DEP-5 saying that if you want to declare copyright and license for the entire package, without making claims about specific files, you should put the fields in the first (header) paragraph of debian/copyright. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwxd2nnm@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: DEP5: Making Files: * non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: Manoj Srivastava sriva...@ieee.org writes: On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote: As far as I know, I don't have a single package for which a copyright field applies 6to all files in the source package (I might have missed one, but I think not). I don't think I have a copyright notice that applies to a package as a whole, but I am not a lawyer. If a source package is an aggregated work, with bits of the package coming from different sources and authors, not all copyright notices apply to the whole package. In such a case, how can I not have, umm, the first paragraph? :-) This is similar to the issue that prompted the discussion that Lars is referring to. I believe that once that change is made, you can achieve your goal by having a debian/copyright file with only one paragraph, with License and Copyright fields in that paragraph. That will present license and copyright information about the entire package without making any statements about specific files. If you want to add subsequent paragraphs about specific files, you can also do that. As long as you have no Files: * paragraph, this should have the semantics you desire. Ah, of course (smacks forehead). Yes, that indeed does address my issues, I was just slow seeing it. Sorry for the noise. manoj -- The ends justify the means. after Matthew Prior Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bp81ouwi@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com
