[SCM] supercollider/master: Further fixes to copyright file (inc added LGPL-2.1+ and MPL-1.1 notice)
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
> >> + 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
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 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...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers