ers (efficient once you know how to do it, but it shouldn’t be that hard to
approach as a new maintainer). In my work mentoring new maintainers, I find
that they also run into a lot of confusion that would be easily resolved if
the links on mentors.debian.net just pointed them in the right directi
Examples of how to appropriately relicense files that fail under this new
Lintian check are
below:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033134[1]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033135[2]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033136[3]
--
Soren
There is a Salsa merge request that fixes this problem.
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/461[1]
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/461
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
pport the Unicode standard. This phrase does not
exist in the license that Unicode adopted later and which they relicensed
their files to use.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Package: lintian
Version: 2.116.3
Severity: wishlist
Lintian currently produces warnings like the following:
inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license appdata.xml (gfdl-1.3 != gfdl-niv-1.3+)
[debian/copyright]
AppStream metadata defines a specific short list of acceptable licenses as
described
Would you be interested in a patch to fix the false positives in this Lintian
check?
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Thank you.
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 2:47:01 PM MST Axel Beckert wrote:
> But I'll at least try to update doc/lintian.rst so that at least the
> content is ready once we can update the website again.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
signature.asc
Description: This is
> I think the answer is that what Debian calls "MIT (Expat)" on that
> page matches what SPDX calls "MIT" (I don't think they are "the same"
> because the underlying concepts of what a license is and so forth are
> not the same).
>
> Richard
It would probably be helpful to update the documentation at
https://lintian.debian.org/manual/index.html#format-of-override-files[1] to
describe the new pointed hints format.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
[1] https://lintian.debian.org/manual/index.html#format-of-override
Once this bug has been fixed, it would probably make sense to update the
Lintian description to indicate that the problematic file can be appropriately
relicensed to a DFSG compatible license, with a link to this bug report for
information about the details.
--
Soren Stoutner
so
I recently came across this bug report while working on cleaning up Lintian
errors on
qtwebengine-opensource-src.
The summarized version of the problem is that the file was originally licensed
under a non-
DFSG-free license, but was later changed by Unicode to be under a DFSG-free
licence.
Go
elines-and-templates/[1]
On Monday, January 16, 2023 11:48:48 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> There appears to be some question of opinion as to if the Debian MIT (Expat)
> License is the same as the SPDX MIT License.
>
> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit[1]
>
> https://
There appears to be some question of opinion as to if the Debian MIT (Expat)
License is
the same as the SPDX MIT License.
https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit[1]
https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html[2]
Can somebody at Debian Legal please comment?
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
), there probably shouldn’t be any question that these are
simply two
different names for the same license (for reasons that probably shouldn’t
surprise me,
open-source people can’t just get along and agree on a name).
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
[1] https://spdx.org/licenses
I created a new bug report to discuss this issue as the root cause ends up
being different than what was originally reported here.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1029055[1]
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug
Package: lintian
Version: 2.115.3
Severity: wishlist
Debian has recently started requesting that graphical programs install
AppStream metainfo.xml files.
https://appstream.debian.org/sid/main/issues/electrum.html
The AppStream specification has a very restricted listed of possible licenses
for
/legal/licenses/mit[11]
If you prefer I can open a separate bug about this issue, as it is my belief
that Lintian
should consider an Expat license in debian/copyright to not be a conflict with
a MIT license
in an AppStream metainfo.xml file.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
[1]
course, prefers the Expat name as it is more precise.
Which leads to this Lintian warning:
inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license debian/metainfo.xml (mit != expat)
[debian/
copyright]
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
[1]
https://freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap
18 matches
Mail list logo
