[SCM] supercollider/master: Further fixes to copyright file (inc added LGPL-2.1+ and MPL-1.1 notice)

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Mon Jun 13 00:41:20 UTC 2011

On 11-06-12 at 08:45pm, Dan S wrote:
> 2011/6/12 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
> > On 11-06-12 at 06:05pm, danstowell-guest at 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
> >> +    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 

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: 

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.


 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20110613/bee842ce/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list