Re: [Plplot-devel] Debian bug 761057

[Andrew Ross]

I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new 
machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
attached a copy and I think this identified all the non-LGPL files (
parts of files) apart from the additional libraries shipped in lib 
(which I also need to deal with and have an outstanding bug report).

This list might be useful more generally. It would be great if we 
could tidy up the odd license files for consistency. In particular
whether examples are GPL or LGPL is a bit random. 

Andrew

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:47:30PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-09-17 23:57+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
> 
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> > My reading of the bug report was different to yours. There are a
> > number of files (e.g. examples which contain licenses different to
> > the LGPL. The debian/copyright file is supposed to contain mention
> > of ALL licenses which are applied to any part of the software. Some
> > (but not all) of the examples are GPL rather than LGPL.
> 
> Hmm.  That is true but that issue should be easy to fix, by using
> the following find command:
> 
> software@raven> find . -type f |grep -v .git \
> |xargs grep -li copyright| xargs grep -Li "public license" |wc -l
> 109
> 
> So there are 109 such files but presumably some of them are
> false positives, and when you replace "wc -l" by
> "xargs grep -i copyright -A20" (or whatever command seems reasonable
> to you), you will be able to figure out which of those 109 should be
> mentioned in Copyright.
> 
> However, I think you should also on general grounds include wording in
> Copyright specifically stating all files in the source code have the
> exact LGPL license terms in that file except for a list of exceptions
> that you (in the ~109 above) and I (assuming I switch from the current
> default LGPL to the specific openBSD documentation license for the
> doxygen-generated files) do need to refine.
> 
> His report did specifically mentioned some doxygen-generated files
> that had some non-lgpl copyright info in them .  But this is strong
> evidence of his complete misunderstanding of doxygen-generated files.
> Roughly a third of those are source listings in html form, and they
> necessarily include all the source text (i.e., from some of the 109
> above) and therefore mention all the copyright notices for that source
> code.  But that obviously has nothing to do with the actual generated
> file copyright which is a completely different matter!
> 
> Look up the list of his bug reports.  There are all similar to the one
> for PLplot so I think he has put together a script that blindly looks
> for all source code files that have the copyright word in them, and
> then files rather unintelligent reports (at least in the
> doxygen-generated case) about copyright inconsistencies he finds for
> those files.  So my semi-facetious guess is he will claim when I use
> the openBSD copyright text for doxygen-generated files even more
> copyright "inconsistencies" because those files (when reporting
> source) will have LGPL text in them as well as that openBSD
> documentation text.  At which point, he will have convincingly
> demonstrated he does not know the difference between documentation
> license and the license for the code quoted by that documentation.  At
> which point, his "bug report" for PLplot should be declared spam. :-)
> 
> Alan
> __
> Alan W. Irwin
> 
> Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
> University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).
> 
> Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
> implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
> Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
> software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project
> (unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
> and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).
> __
> 
> Linux-powered Science
> __
> 
> --
> Want excitement?
> Manually upgrade your production database.
> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> ___
> Plplot-devel mailing list
> Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: plplot
Source: http://sf.net/plplot/
 Upstream source has been repackaged to remove generated files which 
 are non-DFSG compliant.
License: LGPL-2+
Comment: Unless otherwise stated all files are released under the LGPL-2+.
Any file that has a explicit copyright notice may be distributed 
under the terms of both the LGPL and whatever stated conditions accompany 
the copyright.

Fil

Re: [Plplot-devel] Debian bug 761057

[Alan W. Irwin]

On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:

>
> I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
> machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
> attached a copy and I think this identified all the non-LGPL files (
> parts of files) apart from the additional libraries shipped in lib
> (which I also need to deal with and have an outstanding bug report).
>
> This list might be useful more generally. It would be great if we
> could tidy up the odd license files for consistency. In particular
> whether examples are GPL or LGPL is a bit random.

Because PLplot has always been advertised as LGPL with a few minor
exceptions, I suspect a large fraction of the GPL licensing was not
deliberate, but simply an oversight.  Getting all those instances
changed to LGPL would be an excellent goal just to improve our
licensing consistency, but it does require contacting all the
copyright holders and getting their permission for the change.

To get that process started, would all active developers here agree to
changing the licensing to LGPL2+, i.e., the exactly licensing
conditions that appear in COPYING.LIB for all PLplot files where they
hold copyright and which are currently licensed under some form of
LGPL that is not LGPL2+ or licensed under some form of GPL?

I certainly give my own permission for such licensing changes
(assuming all other copyright holders for the files in question
agree), and my hope (to improve our licensing consistency) is that all
other core developers here will explicitly state the same in a reply
to this e-mail.

Alan
__
Alan W. Irwin

Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).

Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project
(unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).
__

Linux-powered Science
__

--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Plplot-devel mailing list
Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel

Re: [Plplot-devel] Debian bug 761057

[Alan W. Irwin]

On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:

>
> I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
> machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
> attached a copy and I think this identified all the non-LGPL files (
> parts of files) apart from the additional libraries shipped in lib
> (which I also need to deal with and have an outstanding bug report).

I have not looked at the list in general, but I 
notice you missed some files, e.g., src/mt19937ar.[ch] and
cmake/epa_build/ExternalProject.cmake which are clearly licensed under
a non-LGPL license.  Note those files are found by the find command I
suggested,

find . -type f |grep -v .git \
|xargs grep -li copyright| xargs grep -Li "public license"

so I am a bit puzzled why they are missing from your list.  Of
course, the above command does not discriminate between GPL
and LGPL, but I guess you have that covered with a slight variation
of the above command.

Also, your file states that the shapelib files are in the public
domain. However, if you look at data/ss/os_open_conditions.txt, the
conditions at

appear to apply, i.e., those files are licensed under the "Open
Government" license which apparently requires some changes to our
Copyright file to conform to that license.

Alan
__
Alan W. Irwin

Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).

Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project
(unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).
__

Linux-powered Science
__

--
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Plplot-devel mailing list
Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel

Re: [Plplot-devel] Debian bug 761057

[Phil Rosenberg]

Hi Alan and Andrew
The shapelib files from Ordnance Survey are my doing. You are right Alan that 
they are under licence rather than in the public domain, however, I used them 
specifically because they were available under an open type licence. I did look 
hard and ordnance survey was the best source of files under any kind of open 
licence. I didn't find anything with a LGPL licence, so unless someone wants to 
generate maps of their own then we will almost certainly have to live with 
different licences here. I would have thought that the details I put in the 
folder with the files would suffice for the credit required by the licence. In 
fact this was the licence info provided to me. However I can see you might want 
to add details to the copyright file. I can do this, but don't want to cause a 
clash with Andrew's work.

Phil

-Original Message-
From: "Alan W. Irwin" 
Sent: ‎18/‎09/‎2014 17:31
To: "Andrew Ross" 
Cc: "PLplot development list" 
Subject: Re: [Plplot-devel] Debian bug 761057

On 2014-09-18 14:13+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:

>
> I've completely reformatted the debian copyright file (using the new
> machine readable format) and done some grepping for rogue files. I've
> attached a copy and I think this identified all the non-LGPL files (
> parts of files) apart from the additional libraries shipped in lib
> (which I also need to deal with and have an outstanding bug report).

I have not looked at the list in general, but I 
notice you missed some files, e.g., src/mt19937ar.[ch] and
cmake/epa_build/ExternalProject.cmake which are clearly licensed under
a non-LGPL license.  Note those files are found by the find command I
suggested,

find . -type f |grep -v .git \
|xargs grep -li copyright| xargs grep -Li "public license"

so I am a bit puzzled why they are missing from your list.  Of
course, the above command does not discriminate between GPL
and LGPL, but I guess you have that covered with a slight variation
of the above command.

Also, your file states that the shapelib files are in the public
domain. However, if you look at data/ss/os_open_conditions.txt, the
conditions at

appear to apply, i.e., those files are licensed under the "Open
Government" license which apparently requires some changes to our
Copyright file to conform to that license.

Alan
__
Alan W. Irwin

Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).

Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project
(unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).
__

Linux-powered Science
__

--
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Plplot-devel mailing list
Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
--
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___
Plplot-devel mailing list
Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel

Re: [Plplot-devel] Debian bug 761057

[Alan W. Irwin]

On 2014-09-18 21:18+0100 Phil Rosenberg wrote:

> Hi Alan and Andrew

> The shapelib files from Ordnance Survey are my doing. You are right
Alan that they are under licence rather than in the public domain,
however, I used them specifically because they were available under an
open type licence.

I agree this license seems fine.

> I did look hard and ordnance survey was the best
source of files under any kind of open licence. I didn't find anything
with a LGPL licence, so unless someone wants to generate maps of their
own then we will almost certainly have to live with different licences
here.

Agreed.

> I would have thought that the details I put in the folder with
the files would suffice for the credit required by the licence. In
fact this was the licence info provided to me. However I can see you
might want to add details to the copyright file. I can do this, but
don't want to cause a clash with Andrew's work.

Yes, I think Andrew should probably do the adjustment of the Copyright
file since he is the one having to deal with bug reports about
licensing.

@Andrew:
The next paragraph is all my opinion, but I don't feel strongly about
it.  Therefore, if you decide to deal with this license another way,
that is fine with me.

The function of the Copyright file is ideally to collect all
information for all licenses in one place.  However, this license for
the Exmoor shapefile data is a fairly long license in PDF format
rather than text so it should probably suffice to state in the
Copyright file that the files in data/ss are subject to the licensing
terms at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf.
This is almost exactly redundant with what Phil states in
data/ss/os_open_conditions.txt, but such redundancy is fine, and that
file explaining the licensing should remain with the data.

Alan
__
Alan W. Irwin

Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).

Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project
(unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).
__

Linux-powered Science
__

--
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Plplot-devel mailing list
Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel