On 2012-06-04 21:15, Jakub Adam wrote: > Hi Niels, > > On 23.5.2012 09:13, Niels Thykier wrote: >> [...] > I found a procedure how these files were generated in > libhover/org.eclipse.linuxtools.cdt.libhover.texinfoparsers/README. > They are created from upstream provided *.texi documentation files, > so the original copyright owners can be traced to: > > glibc-2.7-2.libhover: 1993-2007, Free Software Foundation - this > is non-free as the documentation is under GFDL and includes > invariant sections. Seems to me like linuxtools upstream is > violating GFDL in this case, because the invariant sections aren't > preserved in any form inside the .libhover file (but I can be > wrong). > > newlib-1.16.0.libhover: 1992, 1993, 1994-2004 Red Hat Inc., GNU > GPL > > acmacros-2.68.xml: 1992-1996, 1998-2012 Free Software Foundation, > Inc., GFDL-1.3+ no invariant sections (free) > > ammacros-1.11.1.xml: 1995-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc., > GFDL-1.3+ no invariant sections (free) >
Thanks for clarifying this, to date I still have not founded any copyright holders for the files owned by the Free Software Foundation. I have reported this upstream as a possible license issue. For the interested, the upstream bug is #381660 in the eclipse tracker[1]. [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=381660 > In the end, I decided to remove all of these files and, where > possible, regenerate them from source packages we already have in > Debian. As a bonus we now have more recent documentation than > upstream. debian/docs/regenerateFromTexinfo.sh is meant to be run > manually from time to time to refresh the files e.g. when new > version of automake is uploaded. > I don't suppose these files are installed in any binary package? If so, we could depend/recommend on them and use triggers to update the generated file on the system (assuming the Java code doesn't rely on starting eclipse or so). > Right now, only replacements for acmacros-2.68.xml and > ammacros-1.11.1.xml are created, as I don't intend to package the > libhover plugin in this linuxtools upload. > Ok. > Copyright owners for files in d/docs are mentioned in d/copyright. > We most likely have to ship the original files in the source package. If not to satisfy the GDFL, then to satisfy DFSG#2. (In theory, the packages we pull these files from could be removed from Debian). >> What are *.dash files[3], do they come with a source and a way >> to generate them? > > According to documentation[1] these are Systemtap dashboard > modules, containing a SystemTap script and associated metadata. > They can be created and loaded by the systemtap Eclipse plugin[2]. > The .dash file itself is a gzip compressed zip archive containing > an xml file describing how the data from systemtap script should be > displayed, for example: > > [...] > "a gzip compressed zip archive" as in something.zip.gz? o_O > > I think there is no need to exclude them from the source package. > You are probably right, seems like they are their own source. > Regards, > > Jakub > > [...] > > ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fcdc7b9.6000...@thykier.net
