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)? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
