Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-14 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Le lundi 14 mai 2012 01:59:41, Russ Allbery a écrit : > "Thomas Preud'homme" writes: > > Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim > > Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as > > source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence, whose > >

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-13 Thread Russ Allbery
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes: > Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim > Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as > source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence, whose > structure is: You may convey verbatim copies (…) provided that

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-13 Thread Russ Allbery
Michael Gilbert writes: > Hmmm, I really meant that I found point 1 to be quite astute. I agree, > the conclusion is quite off. The copyright file is very important in > binary packages, and should have full-text licenses. > The important aspect of point 1 is the conclusion that at least with

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-13 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Russ Allbery: >> So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread. > >> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html > > I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very > cogent arguments for why it's wrong and

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-13 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Le samedi 12 mai 2012 22:56:39, Russ Allbery a écrit : > "Thomas Preud'homme" writes: > > Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's > > source code. > > > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html > > > > " 1. You may copy and distribute verb

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-12 Thread Russ Allbery
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes: > Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's > source code. > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html > " 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source > code as you receive it, in any med

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-12 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Le samedi 12 mai 2012 04:25:08, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Michael Gilbert writes: > > So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread. > > > > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html > > I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very >

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-11 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:52:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Charles Plessy writes: > > > given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity > > -- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian > > copyright file is not necessary from a strictly lega

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-11 Thread Russ Allbery
Charles Plessy writes: > given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity > -- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian > copyright file is not necessary from a strictly legal point of view. I don't see the logical justification for this statement.

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-11 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > > Succinctly, the copyright file itself is irrelevant in the source > package since the upstream source should have all of that information > already, and at least for the GPL you can distribute source packages > as is. Thus, t

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-11 Thread Russ Allbery
Michael Gilbert writes: > So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread. > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very cogent arguments for why it's wrong and providing a complete copy of t

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-11 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's >> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being >> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we >>

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-09 Thread Tanguy Ortolo
Jakub Wilk, 2012-05-07 14:24+0200: > How does it know whether to indent a line by one space[1] or two > spaces[2]? Is that such a big deal? Licenses are written to be understandable even if their layout is changed, are they not? -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo | `-'Debian Developer \_

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:14:23PM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit : > > I think this implies that our unit of license-compliance is the source > package, not the binary package - and I suspect the reason we want that > property is that a source package is the smallest unit that the archive > softwa

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Russ Allbery
Matthew Woodcraft writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's >> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being >> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we >> don't include a license. If

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Matthew Woodcraft
Russ Allbery wrote: > I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's > essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being > downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we > don't include a license. If we're legally fine with that, I'm

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Simon McVittie
On 08/05/12 16:23, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's > essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being > downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we > don't include a license. Binary packages

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Russ Allbery
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes: > Le mardi 8 mai 2012 07:56:35, Peter Miller a écrit : >> I has always puzzled me that there are not license packages that one >> could Depends on, and get the appropriate license placed in the >> appropriate place. Apt-get is an excellent mechanism for that kind of

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Jon Dowland
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:10:07PM +0800, Yao Wei (魏銘廷) wrote: > Creative Commons are also a common licenses which many artworks are > using it, but it does not necessary to attach the legal code on it. Is > it reasonable to put Creative Commons licenses (at least > DFSG-compatible ones) into a sin

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Le mardi 8 mai 2012 07:56:35, Peter Miller a écrit : > On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:23 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Conversely, debhelper contains actual, > > documented, and non-insane interfaces that could be used to do > > this properly. For some value of "properly" that the ftpmasters > > would prob

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread 魏銘廷
Creative Commons are also a common licenses which many artworks are using it, but it does not necessary to attach the legal code on it. Is it reasonable to put Creative Commons licenses (at least DFSG-compatible ones) into a single package like creative-commons-licenses? -- Yao Wei -- To UNSUB

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-08 Thread Gergely Nagy
Joey Hess writes: > Gergely Nagy wrote: >> debian/$package.docs: >> | #! /usr/bin/dh-exec --with=copyright-magic >> | debian/copyright.in | copyright-magic >> | README.md >> | whatever-else-you want > > On the off chance this is not another long-delayed April 1 post, > let me mention that, since

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Peter Miller
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:23 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Conversely, debhelper contains actual, > documented, and non-insane interfaces that could be used to do > this properly. For some value of "properly" that the ftpmasters > would probably still insta-REJECT. I has always puzzled me that there a

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Joey Hess
Gergely Nagy wrote: > debian/$package.docs: > | #! /usr/bin/dh-exec --with=copyright-magic > | debian/copyright.in | copyright-magic > | README.md > | whatever-else-you want On the off chance this is not another long-delayed April 1 post, let me mention that, since this relies on undocumented debh

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Andrew Shadura
Hello, On Mon, 07 May 2012 18:32:50 +0200 Gergely Nagy wrote: > since executable debian/copyright is not supported If we forget for a second about dh-exec and how it's used, this sounds really crazy :) -- WBR, Andrew signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Gergely Nagy
Michael Gilbert writes: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: >> Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an >> "uncommon-licenses" package?  Then any package depending on that could >> use a reference to the license instead of including the full text in >> debian/cop

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Russ Allbery
Michael Gilbert writes: > Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an "uncommon-licenses" > package? Then any package depending on that could use a reference to > the license instead of including the full text in debian/copyright. Does that satisfy our legal requirements? common-licen

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an > "uncommon-licenses" package?  Then any package depending on that could > use a reference to the license instead of including the full text in > debian/copyright. I realize that this mis

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Andrea Veri wrote: > Hi, > > while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL) > within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team > having the following rationale: > > "the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-lice

From plain license text to debian copyright (was: Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses)

2012-05-07 Thread Dominique Dumont
On Monday 07 May 2012 14:24:48 Jakub Wilk wrote: > How does it know whether to indent a line by one space[1] or two > spaces[2]? I am specifically thinking about avoiding mistakes like this: Err... Currently, the algorithm is quite dumb: the whole text is shifted by one space, empty lines are re

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Dominique Dumont , 2012-05-07, 14:04: Converting a plain text file into a debian/copyright paragraph can be boring. The end of this blog shows a way that is almost as simple as doing a plain copy: http://ddumont.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/dpkg-edit-debiancontrol-description-without-worrying-

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Dominique Dumont
On Monday 07 May 2012 12:46:20 Igor Pashev wrote: > > [1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/ > > [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487201 > > I think now it's the best to include full text into debian/copyright. > Until (if ever) MPL included in base-files. Converting a plain text

Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Igor Pashev
07.05.2012 14:33, Andrea Veri пишет: > Hi, > > while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL) > within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team > having the following rationale: > > "the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses, > t

Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

2012-05-07 Thread Andrea Veri
Hi, while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL) within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team having the following rationale: "the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses, thus the full text has to be added into debian/copyrig