[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gnulib



Quoting Simon Josefsson (2024-04-18 09:34:26)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> 
> > That said, you are welcome to try nudge me if some concrete task
> > emerges where you image I might be of help.
> 
> Thanks -- I'm moving this out of 921954@bugs and cc'ing debian-devel to
> allow others to help and to allow you from not having to feel a need to
> reply at all :)

Thanks for releaving me.

...but then you bring up licensing, which has my special interest :-D

> One of the things that bothered me with the gnulib Debian package that
> I've been too afraid to touch is the debian/copyright file.  It triggers
> a lot of lintian errors:
> 
> https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=gnulib
> 
> For reference here is current debian/copyright:
> 
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gnulib/-/blob/debian/sid/debian/copyright
> 
> I've seen debian/clscan/ and ran the tools there, but I don't yet feel
> comfortable patching things, and it didn't produce clean results even
> for the last version in testing before I started to work on this
> package, so I'm not convinced this toolchain is the best approach going
> forward.

When I took over maintenance my first thought was also to get rid of the
clscan script, but then I realized how enormous a work it would be to
approach it differently and wrapped my head around the script and
adjusted it.

Does it sound like you are in a similar situation now as I was, or is
there something in particular that makes you consider abandoning clscan?
If you are simply not fluent in perl, then perhaps reach out to the
Debian perl team for help? Or perhaps look in the git history the tweaks
that I made - perhaps those are of inspiration to whatever issue you are
running into now?

> One problem is that lintian doesn't like [REF01] in lines like this:
> 
> License: FSFAP [REF01]

I agree with lintian about the above (but we disagree on other things -
see bug#786450). I am confident that the above syntax is incorrect:
copyright format 1.0 requires a single-word shortname.

> Is the reason why this is done that you want to record a full copy of
> the actual text from the particular file AND some more information?
> Sometimes there is a file X with the FSFAP license and some additional
> text not part of the core FSFAP license, and another file Y that also
> uses FSFAP but has some OTHER additional text that you want to record?

I guess so.  While I maintained the package I did some cleanup of the
copyright file, but did not get around to tightening the [REFnn] syntax,
and I have not been in touch with the previous maintainer who introduced
it, Ian Beckwith, which is why I am only guessing here.

> In some other packages, I've used the Comment: field like this for
> situations like that.  Maybe it is applicable here?
> 
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2016 Google LLC. All Rights Reserved.
>            2022 Trillian Authors. All Rights Reserved.
>            2016 The Kubernetes Authors.
>            2017 Google LLC. All Rights Reserved.
> License: Apache-2.0
> Comment: Quoting AUTHORS:
>  # This is the official list of benchmark authors for copyright purposes.
>  Antonio Marcedone <a.marcedone@gmail.com>
>  Google LLC
>  Internet Security Research Group
>  Vishal Kuo <vishalkuo@gmail.com>
> 
> The idea is that from a legal perspective, the copyright notices and
> keywords 'FSFAP' and 'Apache-2.0' with full text copy of the license is
> sufficient documentation.  However, for reasons like proper attribution
> and having more background information, it is useful to say something
> more than what's legally required, including properly quoting the
> relevant files.  I think the Comment: section makes for a better place
> than License: fields for this.

I generally agree with your approach above.
Specifically for your concrete example above, I find the Comment
superfluous.

Also, one detail: I would avoid content in first line of the Comment
field - i.e. I would move the text "Quoting AUTORS:" down on a separate
line, indented same as the following lines.  Arguably the syntax used
above is technically permitted, but I have not seen it used. Details on
that is here:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#formatted-text


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: