On 11-06-12 at 08:45pm, Dan S wrote: > 2011/6/12 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > > On 11-06-12 at 06:05pm, danstowell-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: > >> +License: LGPL-2.1+ > >> + This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > >> + modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public > >> + License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either > >> + version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. > >> +. > >> + This package is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > >> + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > >> + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > >> + Lesser General Public License for more details. > >> +. > >> + You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public > >> + License along with this package; if not, write to the Free Software > >> + Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 > >> USA > >> + . > >> + On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public License > >> version 2 > >> + can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1' file. > > > > Last sentence refer to wrong license. > > Oops, thanks. > > > Last but one sentence is superfluous. > > Superfluous? I don't see.
Oh, sorry. No, you are right: As it is composed above it is not superfluous. What I do myself (and wrongly thought you'd done as well) is to _not_ treat the paragraph referring to upstream canonical license location as part of the licensing info needing verbatim copying - because of the fact that it has been common practice in Debian for some time (to the extend that it triggers a lintian warning) to actively violate the "verbatim" of that part regarding GPL licenses which reference an old postal address for the Free Software Foundation. What I do instead is include in a Comment: subsection a modern reference to the FSF website, disregarding how upstream project referred to it. ...and when doing that, the verbatim copy is superfluous. > Let me check that I understand: all 567 lines of the MPL to go in the > copyright file? Don't take my word for it: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile The central word there is "verbatim". > Packages such as thunderbird and firefox put it in MPL.gz, which we > could put in the debian/ dir but I don't think the policy allows it to > go in a different file...? If you mean that upstream projects ship their licensing that way then that is irrelevant: The issue is Debian Policy, not some universal law. If you mean Debian packages (of _renaming_ of said projects: icedove and iceweasel), and that they ship licensing text separately _instead_ of verbatim inside the debian/copyright file itself, then I agree with your suggestion that it is not allowed by DEbian Policy, and I suggest filing bugreports about that, with a high severity. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
