XPost: linux.debian.devel.qa
From: [email protected]

Ola Lundqvist <[email protected]> writes:

Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
not include such source comments (hsftp).

It depends on the particular case.

That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
to be clear.

No no, I think you still don't understand.

Merely distributing a copy of the GPL *means nothing*. What must
happen is the author must say "this work is distributed under the
terms of the GPL." It is totally irrelevant what any of the files are
called.

In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
*which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
LICENSE, or by some other way. He did not, and that's a bug.

The latest version, by contrast, contains no such statement at all,
anywhere at all. It simply distributes the GPL (which the old version
did too). It is totally irrelevant what filename the GPL is put in.

What makes this a serious bug, and something that could warrant the
package being removed, is that we should have real doubts about the
intentions of the upstream maintainer. He *removed* the grant of
permission to copy--not just failed to include one--and he has
declined to answer repeated queries from Debian about what his
licensing intentions are.

Did you actually read what I wrote? The new upstream has a "COPYING"
file with full GPL statement. Is that not enough as copying file
(except for source notes)?

No. It is totally irrelevant what the filename is. Distibuting a
copy of the GPL is not, in any way, shape, or form, the same thing as
licensing a program under the GPL.

Do you really think this is a problem still? It can not be of 'serious' severity at least. Not at least unless you want to keep the sarge
release away for a big number of months.

Hogwash. The consequence is that mmake would not be part of sarge.
Mmake is not a very important program.

Thomas


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.devel.qa
From: [email protected]

Hello

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 11:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

Ola Lundqvist <[email protected]> writes:

associated with the copyrights in the actual source files, and that's what actually matters. I wish it were not so, but thus it is. We
cannot tell from that file which things it covers, and that makes it
not a valid license. :(

Well this is the case with _many_ _many_ packages that debian ships.

Well, we should file bugs against them!

Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
not include such source comments (hsftp).

A few developers (including myself) tend to forget to include the
GPL header into the actual source files. If we need to be that picky
we have to make a very deep review of all our packages.

I'm not suggesting expunging them. But it's a bug which should be
fixed. We can't pretend it's not a problem, because it really is.
It has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In this particular case, upstream has not given *any* indication,
after having been asked for some time. That makes me much more
nervous. Also, the file "LICENSE" was removed in the most recent
release. What does that mean?

That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
to be clear.

debian/copyright is surely better than nothing, but it alas, does not solve the problem, so the bug should remain open. If upstream can't
say what his actual licensing intentions are, then we will have to
remove the package. (Which is, frankly, no huge disaster.)

If you want I can upload the latest upstream version instead
that still have copyright information.

Alas, the latest version is even worse, because it doesn't have the
"LICENSE" file at all. There is no way we can possibly distribute
that.

We have to have *something* from upstream. The existing Debian
version, with the LICENSE file, is a bug, and a serious one, but it's
fixable and doesn't require immediate worry. It does require some communication from upstream.

The most recent version of mmake, however, is totally undistributable
by us; it contains no permissions to copy of any kind.

Did you actually read what I wrote? The new upstream has a "COPYING"
file with full GPL statement. Is that not enough as copying file
(except for source notes)?

ola@tigereye:~/build/debian/_qa/t/mmake-2.3$ ls -l
totalt 152
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 3321 2004-04-02 05:17 CHANGES
-rwxrwxr-x 1 ola ola 71486 2004-04-02 05:20 configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 681 2004-03-30 12:10 configure.in
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 18009 2004-03-30 12:10 COPYING
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 5585 2004-03-30 12:10 install-sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 1537 2004-03-30 12:10 Makefile.in
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ola ola 11464 2004-04-02 05:20 mmake.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 24384 2004-04-02 05:13 mmake.in
-rw-r--r-- 1 ola ola 3223 2004-04-02 05:20 README
drwxrwxr-x 4 ola ola 100 2004-04-02 04:10 tildeslash ola@tigereye:~/build/debian/_qa/t/mmake-2.3$

Do you really think this is a problem still? It can not be of 'serious' severity at least. Not at least unless you want to keep the sarge
release away for a big number of months.

Regards,

// Ola

Thomas

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

--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ [email protected] Annebergsslingan 37 \
| [email protected] 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.devel.qa
From: [email protected]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

Ola Lundqvist <[email protected]> writes:

Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
not include such source comments (hsftp).

It depends on the particular case.

That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
to be clear.

No no, I think you still don't understand.

Merely distributing a copy of the GPL *means nothing*. What must
happen is the author must say "this work is distributed under the
terms of the GPL." It is totally irrelevant what any of the files are called.

Current sid/sarge:

[jeroen@mordor]/tmp/mmake-2.2.1$ cat LICENSE
COPYRIGHT GNUGPL (c) 1998-2001 Jan-Henrik Haukeland <[email protected]>

Redistribution and use with or without modification, are permitted
provided that the above copyright notice can be reproduced. Please see
the enclosed GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE file for complete details. [jeroen@mordor]/tmp/mmake-2.2.1$

Seems ok to me, though a little bit non-standard.

In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
*which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the

A LICENSE file in the root of package surely implies it applies to the
whole tarball, doesn't it? I've *never* seen a package with a copyright statement that listed the source files that were going with that
copyright... Thomas, can you name one package that does so?

Anyway, could you please continue this discussion on -legal? This isn't
really a topic for discussion on -qa.

--Jeroen

--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[email protected] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.devel.qa, linux.debian.legal
From: [email protected]

Hello

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

Ola Lundqvist <[email protected]> writes:

Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
not include such source comments (hsftp).

It depends on the particular case.

Ok.

That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and added COPYING instead
to be clear.

No no, I think you still don't understand.

Merely distributing a copy of the GPL *means nothing*. What must
happen is the author must say "this work is distributed under the
terms of the GPL." It is totally irrelevant what any of the files are called.

Ok. But he do that in the current version right? If he does not do that
in a later version is not very relevant.

In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
*which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
LICENSE, or by some other way. He did not, and that's a bug.

Ok. If we need to be that hard we have to file serious bugs on a great
number of packages!

Here is some samples:
hsftp - note in readme but no licensing source comments
kernel-patch-ctx - no notes at all, but they are kernel patches
and upstream release them (or did at least) just as patches.
lshw - just a COPYING file
cron-apt - just a COPYING file (this should be ok as I'm the author)
setserial - just as a small note in version.h and linux/serial.h no
GPL document in upstream sources at all.
...
etc.

So to be real even a package that was a part of base (until just a
week or two ago, setserial) has uncertain licensing infomration. I
may even find it in tools that are part of base, but I have not started
to look yet.

I'll CC debian-legal about this.

The latest version, by contrast, contains no such statement at all,
anywhere at all. It simply distributes the GPL (which the old version
did too). It is totally irrelevant what filename the GPL is put in.

What makes this a serious bug, and something that could warrant the
package being removed, is that we should have real doubts about the intentions of the upstream maintainer. He *removed* the grant of
permission to copy--not just failed to include one--and he has
declined to answer repeated queries from Debian about what his
licensing intentions are.

Ok, I'll try to contact him too.

Did you actually read what I wrote? The new upstream has a "COPYING"
file with full GPL statement. Is that not enough as copying file
(except for source notes)?

No. It is totally irrelevant what the filename is. Distibuting a
copy of the GPL is not, in any way, shape, or form, the same thing as licensing a program under the GPL.

Ok, then I have to file serious bugs on a number of my own packages,
right, even if I'm the author?

Do you really think this is a problem still? It can not be of 'serious' severity at least. Not at least unless you want to keep the sarge
release away for a big number of months.

Hogwash. The consequence is that mmake would not be part of sarge.
Mmake is not a very important program.

Even if it has been in debian for a VERY long time? It was a part
of woody (at least).

Not that I really care about mmake, because I have never used it. It
is the principle that bothers me.

You are probably right but I really object on the severity of it.

Regards,

// Ola

Thomas

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

--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ [email protected] Annebergsslingan 37 \
| [email protected] 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)