On Friday, March 7, 2025 11:26:49 PM MST Phil Wyett wrote: > > > Test 7 (licenserecon): Information > > > > > > d/copyright | licensecheck > > > > > > BSD-2-clause | FSFULLR config.rpath > > > > I think this is covered by policy 2.3: > > > > Thus, the copyright information for files in the source package which > > are only part of its build process, such as autotools files, need not > > be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because those files > > do not get installed into the binary package. > > Indeed, I have filed the issue below to see if we can have 'licenserecon' > exclude these from checking. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099786
Actually, licenserecon’s behavior is correct, although I do understand that the policy is written in a way that is easy to misinterpret. Basically, *all* license information must be included in debian/copyright. Full stop. Some *copyright* information may be omitted from debian/copyright. Relevant sections of the policy: 2.3 "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its distribution *license(s)* in the file /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.” This is the part that is talking about licenses (emphasis mine in the quote). It is communicating that all license information must be reflected in debian/copyright, but it isn’t as forceful or as clear as it could be. However, it will be clarified later in the policy. "The *copyright* information for files in a package must be copied verbatim into /usr/ share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, when all of the following hold: "1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions; “2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or compiled form; and "3. the form in which the files are present in the binary package does not include a plain text version of their copyright notices. "Thus, the *copyright information* for files in the source package which are only part of its build process, such as autotools files, need not be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/ copyright, because those files do not get installed into the binary package. Similarly, plain text files which include their own copyright information and are installed into the binary package unmodified need not have that copyright information copied into /usr/share/doc/ PACKAGE/copyright” This section explains when copyright information (emphasis mine in quote) may be omitted, including in scenarios such as autotools files. 22.8 "The copyright information for files in a package must be copied verbatim into /usr/share/ doc/PACKAGE/ copyright when all of the following hold: "1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions; "2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or compiled form; and "3. the form in which the files are present in the binary package does not include a plain text version of their copyright notices. "Note that there is no change to the requirement to copy *all licensing information* into / usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.” This part clarifies that all licensing information must be included in debian/copyright (emphasis mine in the quote). So, if your autotools files have the same license as the main project, then you do not need to include their copyright information in debian/copyright, even if it is different than the other copyright information already listed. However, if your autotools files have different licensing information than the main project, you do need to include them in debian/ copyright. The licenserecon check indicates that this file does have a different license (FSFULLR). It may be a false positive, which licenserecon sometimes produces, but if it isn’t then you need to address it. And if it is a false positive, you can add an override in debian/lrc.config with a comment explaining why. As an example, here is a debian/copyright file I recently created for a project with a lot of different licenses in its autotools files. It included a couple of entries that are not required by current policy (but are not prohibited either). But everything that contains a separate license is required to be included. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
