On 08/03/2025 11:59, Soren Stoutner wrote:
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
@Soren,
I'm not at all sure about this.
It seems to me that the Policy wording is ambiguous,
as I would interpret "copyright information" to imply both the copyright
notice/statement and the license itself.
I can't see that the definition of FSFULLR requires copyright info in
the binary when the file itself is only in the source.
"This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved."
@Phil,
However, putting config.rpath into Google, over half the first page of
hits have files licensed GPL2 !
So i think it would be a mistake to add config.rpath to lrc's list of
exclusions.
On further thought, I'm tempted to 'wontfix' #1099786
Regards,
Peter
