Re: ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
Jonas Smedegaard <dr <at> jones.dk>
2011-12-01 18:25:19 GMT
On 11-12-01 at 11:26am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> the reason why i started this discussion is not because i don't care
> about licensing of those files; but that i think - as felipe has
> already pointed out - that "properly" documenting those files as is
> currently suggested only creates noise.
>
> my reasoning is, that those generated (but copyrighted) files, are
> virtually the same for all packages that use autotools.
> assuming that about 40% of all the C/C++ based debian packages use
> autotools (that is just a wild guess based on nothing but intuition)
> this would eventually suggest that we add the very same information to
> about 4000 packages or so (naively interpolating from debtags)
If code is duplicated 4000 times, then licensing of code needs to be
stated 4000 times.
> i thought that it might be helpful, if we shorten that information to
> something like
> <snip>
> Files: libtool, config.sub, config.guess,...
> License: autotools
> see /usr/share/doc/licenses/autotools
> </snip>
>
> i'm aware that it might not be that simple, as i haven't followed the
> evaluation of the various licenses applied to autotools generated
> files.
Feel free to file a bug report against base-files.
I doubt it will be accepted, because it is not a single license but a
range of different licenses carefully applied to various of the
autogenerated files.
> > If you are lazy and want least possible documentation of autotools,
> > then add a single Files section something like this:
> >
> > Files: configure*
> > Makefile*
> > *m4*
> > config*
> > libtool*
> > Copyright: 1992-2008, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > License: GPL-2+
> >
> > Extend with "missing, depcomp, etc" and don't give a shit about
> > exceptions or more liberal licensing - just treat it all as being
> > contaminated with GPL-2+.
>
> which is a similar suggestion as mine above.
> however, i'm not so convinced about the "contaminated with GPL-2+"
> argument.
Treating them all as GPL-2+ is the very essence of the proposal: Avoids
changing base-files.
> > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those
> > developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool
> > that is clearly good enough that you use it.
>
> hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of
> those great tools. even if i was "lazy and [...] treat it all as [...]
> GPL-2+" there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work.
Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another.
> and with my debian hat on, it was not my decision to use those tools;
> i only respect upstreams intention.
You have the option of repackaging the source with those autogenerated
files removed.
- Jonas
--
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers <at> lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
RSS Feed