Forum: >>> Magnum BBS <<<

Bug#1099786: Bug#1099627: RFS: calcurse/4.8.1-1.2 [NMU] [RC] -- text-ba

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 8 08:36:11 2025

XPost: linux.debian.devel.mentors
To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Copy: 1099627@bugs.debian.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart1843043.3VsfAaAtOV
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:21:32 AM MST Peter B wrote:

On 08/03/2025 11:59, Soren Stoutner wrote:

On Friday, March 7, 2025 11:26:49 PM MST Phil Wyett wrote:

Test 7 (licenserecon): Information

d/copyright | licensecheck

BSD-2-clause | FSFULLR config.rpath

I think this is covered by policy 2.3:

Thus, the copyright information for files in the source package

which

are only part of its build process, such as autotools files,

need not

be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because those files

do not get installed into the binary package.

Indeed, I have filed the issue below to see if we can have

'licenserecon'

exclude these from checking.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099786

Actually, licenserecon’s behavior is correct, although I do understand that the policy is written in a way that is easy to misinterpret.

Basically, *all* license information must be included in
debian/copyright. Full stop.

Some *copyright* information may be omitted from debian/copyright.

Relevant sections of the policy:

2.3

"Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
distribution *license(s)* in the file /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.”

This is the part that is talking about licenses (emphasis mine in the quote). It is communicating that all license information must be
reflected in debian/copyright, but it isn’t as forceful or as clear as
it could be. However, it will be clarified later in the policy.

"The *copyright* information for files in a package must be copied
verbatim into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, when all of the
following hold:

"1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions;

“2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or compiled form; and

"3. the form in which the files are present in the binary package does
not include a plain text version of their copyright notices.

"Thus, the *copyright information* for files in the source package
which are only part of its build process, such as autotools files,
need not be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because
those files do not get installed into the binary package. Similarly,
plain text files which include their own copyright information and are installed into the binary package unmodified need not have that
copyright information copied into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright”

This section explains when copyright information (emphasis mine in
quote) may be omitted, including in scenarios such as autotools files.

22.8

"The copyright information for files in a package must be copied
verbatim into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/ copyright when all of the
following hold:

"1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright information be included in all copies and/or

binary distributions;

"2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or compiled form; and

--nextPart1843043.3VsfAaAtOV
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>On Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:21:32 AM MST Peter B wrote:
> On 08/03/2025 11:59, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Friday, March 7, 2025 11:26:49 PM MST Phil Wyett wrote:
> > > > > Test 7 (licenserecon): Information
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > d/copyright | licensecheck
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > BSD-2-clause | FSFULLR config.rpath
> > > > 
> > > > I think this is covered by policy 2.3:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thus, the copyright information for files in the source package
> > 
> > which
> > 
> > > > are only part of its build process, such as autotools files,
> > 
> > need not
> > 
> > > > be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because those files
> > > > 
> > > > do not get installed into the binary package.
> > > 
> > > Indeed, I have filed the issue below to see if we can have
> > 
> > 'licenserecon'
> > 
> > > exclude these from checking.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099786
> > 
> > Actually, licenserecon’s behavior is correct, although I do understand
> > that the policy is written in a way that is easy to misinterpret.
> > 
> > 
> > Basically, *all* license information must be included in
> > debian/copyright. Full stop.
> > 
> > 
> > Some *copyright* information may be omitted from debian/copyright.
> > 
> > 
> > Relevant sections of the policy:
> > 
> > 
> > 2.3
> > 
> > 
> > "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
> > distribution *license(s)* in the file /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.”
> > 
> > 
> > This is the part that is talking about licenses (emphasis mine in the
> > quote). It is communicating that all license information must be
> > reflected in debian/copyright, but it isn’t as forceful or as clear as
> > it could be. However, it will be clarified later in the policy.
> > 
> > 
> > "The *copyright* information for files in a package must be copied
> > verbatim into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, when all of the
> > following hold:
> > 
> > 
> > "1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright
> > information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions;
> > 
> > 
> > “2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or
> > compiled form; and
> > 
> > 
> > "3. the form in which the files are present in the binary package does
> > not include a plain text version of their copyright notices.
> > 
> > 
> > "Thus, the *copyright information* for files in the source package
> > which are only part of its build process, such as autotools files,
> > need not be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because
> > those files do not get installed into the binary package. Similarly,
> > plain text files which include their own copyright information and are
> > installed into the binary package unmodified need not have that
> > copyright information copied into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright”
> > 
> > 
> > This section explains when copyright information (emphasis mine in
> > quote) may be omitted, including in scenarios such as autotools files.
> > 
> > 
> > 22.8
> > 
> > 
> > "The copyright information for files in a package must be copied
> > verbatim into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/ copyright when all of the
> > following hold:
> > 
> > 
> > "1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright
> > information be included in all copies and/or
> > 
> > binary distributions;
> > 
> > 
> > "2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or
> > compiled form; and
> > 
> > 
> > "3. the form in which the files are present in the binary package does
> > not include a plain text version of their copyright notices.
> > 
> > 
> > "Note that there is no change to the requirement to copy *all
> > licensing information* into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.”
> > 
> > 
> > This part clarifies that all licensing information must be included in
> > debian/copyright (emphasis mine in the quote).
> > 
> > 
> > So, if your autotools files have the same license as the main project,
> > then you do not need to include their copyright information in
> > debian/copyright, even if it is different than the other copyright
> > information already listed. However, if your autotools files have
> > different licensing information than the main project, you do need to
> > include them in debian/copyright.
> > 
> > 
> > The licenserecon check indicates that this file does have a different
> > license (FSFULLR). It may be a false positive, which licenserecon
> > sometimes produces, but if it isn’t then you need to address it. And
> > if it is a false positive, you can add an override in
> > debian/lrc.config with a comment explaining why.
> > 
> > 
> > As an example, here is a debian/copyright file I recently created for
> > a project with a lot of different licenses in its autotools files. It
> > included a couple of entries that are not required by current policy
> > (but are not prohibited either). But everything that contains a
> > separate license is required to be included.
> > 
> > 
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_t
> > ype=heads
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Soren Stoutner
> > 
> > soren@debian.org
> > @Soren,
> > I'm not at all sure about this.
> It seems to me that the Policy wording is ambiguous,
> as I would interpret "copyright information" to imply both the copyright
> notice/statement and the license itself.
 Policy 22.8 is not ambiguous, which is the release that added the option to not include all copyright information in debian/copyright (previously all copyright information was
required).  When this change was made, they specifically said:
 “Note that there is no change to the requirement to copy *all licensing information* into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.”
 -- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org
</body>
</html>
--nextPart1843043.3VsfAaAtOV--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmfMY+sACgkQwufLJ66w tgNV/w//crLhhJ/lalUEyeUxQ40bWY5ZlxJDEgQ9ExsduHttioOXPp6dQ1NPCG7p yIQ3baf435f3ucNylH2tsidZeUA4Yxrxs2nm8ySS3FpwBctjR78+8vHHNp9oLKrb CmTOth2LgDrelHiVerbQ1NVYm8UY2laj/KJxNdx6dRys0okLhbtdRGcr2jCuz1Hq eq123zJQMML5HFON12ymBX58yRCcoAjSz5+DGIBsYSTimLFm0iwuZRMUgZ9Xc1Qe iVGk+lxWtUIhHp0cAEXlS3vH2Qx353EIM48Joirh4q0l4NBqQw+k+o858SypH0h9 AhoFR4doVA8TLI68kJjYtijgsKejDiq9L4AjPJQPEYSC2UjIJOO12wuPFh8fwm7Y ZQP6LD/Uo+D0lWQOZ5BXxFo5jVtsFeWCF0EqCACregin2ZzhVoyVB3568+dG52uf m40siudyUFJy6cMt+fRtg6GVxRrRIvxjv5btfCMR04c8fCK2WyOWHUCfQBqnDGGs v/43z1wz+xp5ww5WksoNetQPfZMFXHJlvc2cB7Q6g5mM3BU4eIhnV1nzVzkIs++Y AaKTT1zAOLMxi+PnFSjzLTGazQQ5rcCWTHoc/Xfj1PoJE1ms4TJ1pkVXREOqniB9 D4UQBwF7rAXnh84lRg2nfmynDr6RXPURCJ/xHFz9k8JJBKrNl0I=
=pKJG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Peter B@21:1/5 to Soren Stoutner on Sun Mar 9 17:00:01 2025

On 08/03/2025 15:40, Soren Stoutner wrote:

On Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:21:32 AM MST Peter B wrote:

I'm not at all sure about this.

It seems to me that the Policy wording is ambiguous,

as I would interpret "copyright information" to imply both the copyright

notice/statement and the license itself.

Policy 22.8 is not ambiguous, which is the release that added the
option to not include all copyright information in debian/copyright (previously all copyright information was required). When this change
was made, they specifically said:

“Note that there is no change to the requirement to copy *all
licensing information* into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.”

I do agree that without this statement in 22.8 it would be ambiguous.

--

Soren Stoutner

soren@debian.org

@Soren,

I get your point now. It seems I was wrong in excluding autotools files
from checking in lrc.

@Phil,

I'm tempted to invert the original title of your bug report.

rather than saying
Bug#1099786: Exclude files that are part of build e.g. autotools
Seems to me, it could instead say
Bug#1099786: Do not exclude autotools files from checking.

That would enable me to close the bug.

Regards,
Peter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Who's Online

System Info

Sysop:	Keyop
Location:	Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK
Users:	480
Nodes:	16 (2 / 14)
Uptime:	247:06:09
Calls:	9,532
Files:	13,650
Messages:	6,137,720

Bug#1099786: Bug#1099627: RFS: calcurse/4.8.1-1.2 [NMU] [RC] -- text-ba

Who's Online

System Info