Hi Luis, On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:45:50AM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: > > I'm taking a cut at fixing the copyright file. > > For this I'm following the guidelines in: > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#license-field > > The "copyright" file in fis-gtm-initial has two license sections. > > A) The GTM license, which is AGPL-3.0 > B) The debian/* files license, which is GPL-2+
Using any free (and compatible) license for debian/* files is fine. For simplicity reasons I usually use "same as above" style license. > For the case of (A), the full text of the license is in the file, Yes. This is because there is no copy of AGPL installed on Debian systems. > While for (B), only a summary of the GPL2 license is in > there, and a reference to the full text in the file: > > /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 > > It would seem like a good idea to simplify the text in (A) > to the the same as (B). However, in my installation, > the directory: > > /usr/share/common-licenses/ You shoul *only* refer to packages inside this directory (which comes with package base-files). Refering to random copies of licenses does not work. > Then, when searching for a potential > AGPL-3 file with apt-file, I get: > > command: > > apt-file find AGPL-3 > > result: > > r-base-core: /usr/share/R/share/licenses/AGPL-3 > r-base-core-ra: /usr/lib/Ra/share/licenses/AGPL-3 Most probably these packages get lintian warnings about "duplicate license file there". You can test lintian on these packages if you do not believe. > Is there a reason why there is not a > full AGPL-3 file in a common place ? I think it was previousely discussed - at least I remember discussion about including MPL. There was some consensus about not including it based on numbers of packages featuring this license. Feel free to try filing a bug report to base-files and ask for inclusion. IMHO the time you will spend just including the full text is way shorter than doing the according discussion. > Should then I leave the full text of the license in > the "fis-gtm-initial/debian/copyright" file ? Yes. > or could I refer to the full text of AGPL > at the GNU site: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.txt ? No. The license MUST be included inside the package. Otherwise your package will never pass ftpmaster. > In the meantime, I follow your advice of using "."s > to fill-up the empty lines and convert the full license > into a single paragraph. > ... > License: AGPL-3.0 OK. > > My assumption is that in this way it will be better suited > to be machine readable. Yes. > Here is the relevant diff: Can you please simply commit your changes and let me have a look. It does not matter whether it fixes the problem or just changes the error / or warning. That's way simpler for me to understand. > (I also noticed that I was placing the "." chars > in the first column, and that Thorsten's section > has them in the second column, aligned with > the rest of all the text, and so are the examples > in: > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#license-short-name, > This could have been my mistake in the first place...) > > After that I run "debuild" again, > and this time "lintian" is happy: > > ..... > Now running lintian... > Finished running lintian. > ..... > > So, I have a modified version of the "copyright" > file ready to commit to SVN. So if it is ready to commot just be bold and do not wait. :-) > Any objections to committing this "debian/copyright" > file in its current form ? Please assume every commiter to the Debian Med repository would ask me for permission to commit. I'm afraid I would not scale. ;-) > Also, > are there specific rules regarding the format and > content of SVN commit messages ? The rule is: "Whatever might sound sensible to you." > The policy doesn't seem to have one: No. I would regard this as to complex to give advise about. Just write whatever you want to tell your coworkers. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
