FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-18-2011, 07:36 PM
Neil Williams
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400
Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:

> I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
> for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
> that are installed by the generated .deb.
>
> Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of
> debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in
> the copyright file?

Auto-generated files can only have the copyright of whatever creative
content is provided by a human writer (not the copyright of the tools
used in generation). The documentation presumably comes from some kind
of source files contained in the source package and presents that same
data in a different format. The copyright of the original data is
unaffected (assuming it complies with DFSG), the generated content is
basically the distribution of a modified form of the source itself and
hence under the same licence as the source itself.

Declaring the copyright of the source covers any reformatting of the
source which occurs during the building/packaging/distribution process.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 07-18-2011, 07:48 PM
Steve Langasek
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
> for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
> that are installed by the generated .deb.

> Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of
> debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in
> the copyright file?

> If they have to be included: isn't that slightly inconsistent? If one
> wants to have the copyright for all *installed* files (rather than all
> shipped files), shouldn't the files then also be listed relative to the
> system root (rather than the source package directory)?

DEP5 does not require per-file recording of copyright and license
information, it merely provides a facility for doing so where this is
interesting or relevant.

I don't personally think it's interesting or relevant to record in
debian/copyright the license of generated files, and there is certainly
nothing in Policy that requires you to do this. Why do you ask?

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
 
Old 07-18-2011, 11:23 PM
Nikolaus Rath
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
>> for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
>> that are installed by the generated .deb.
>
>> Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of
>> debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in
>> the copyright file?
>
>> If they have to be included: isn't that slightly inconsistent? If one
>> wants to have the copyright for all *installed* files (rather than all
>> shipped files), shouldn't the files then also be listed relative to the
>> system root (rather than the source package directory)?
>
> DEP5 does not require per-file recording of copyright and license
> information, it merely provides a facility for doing so where this is
> interesting or relevant.
>
> I don't personally think it's interesting or relevant to record in
> debian/copyright the license of generated files, and there is certainly
> nothing in Policy that requires you to do this. Why do you ask?


My sponsor requested me to add debian/copyright entries for files in the
generated HTML documentation. The documentation is generated by Sphinx,
and Sphinx adds some templates and js libraries which are then covered
(at least that's what I believe) by the Sphinx license rather then the
license of the documentation source files.

On one hand it makes sense to me that /usr/share/[package]/copyright
should contains information about all files in [package]. But on the
other hand it doesn't make sense to me to add something like
"debian/tmp/..." into my copyright file...


Best,

-Nikolaus

--
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8762mzi36y.fsf@vostro.rath.org">http://lists.debian.org/8762mzi36y.fsf@vostro.rath.org
 
Old 07-18-2011, 11:54 PM
Nikolaus Rath
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400
> Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:
>
>> I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
>> for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
>> that are installed by the generated .deb.
>>
>> Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of
>> debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in
>> the copyright file?
>
> Auto-generated files can only have the copyright of whatever creative
> content is provided by a human writer (not the copyright of the tools
> used in generation). The documentation presumably comes from some kind
> of source files contained in the source package and presents that same
> data in a different format.

Yes, but it also contains images, style sheets and java script libraries
from the rendering tool (Sphinx).

> The copyright of the original data is unaffected (assuming it complies
> with DFSG), the generated content is basically the distribution of a
> modified form of the source itself and hence under the same licence as
> the source itself.
>
> Declaring the copyright of the source covers any reformatting of the
> source which occurs during the building/packaging/distribution
> process.

Even in this case?


Best,

-Nikolaus

--
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8739i3i1qx.fsf@vostro.rath.org">http://lists.debian.org/8739i3i1qx.fsf@vostro.rath.org
 
Old 07-19-2011, 06:09 AM
Neil Williams
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:54:14 -0400
Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:

> Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400
> > Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
> >> for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
> >> that are installed by the generated .deb.
> >>
> >> Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of
> >> debian/rules (e.g. rendered documentation) do not need to be included in
> >> the copyright file?
> >
> > Auto-generated files can only have the copyright of whatever creative
> > content is provided by a human writer (not the copyright of the tools
> > used in generation). The documentation presumably comes from some kind
> > of source files contained in the source package and presents that same
> > data in a different format.
>
> Yes, but it also contains images, style sheets and java script libraries
> from the rendering tool (Sphinx).

So those retain whatever copyright relates to those from the Sphinx
package and have nothing to do with the copyright of your package.

> > The copyright of the original data is unaffected (assuming it complies
> > with DFSG), the generated content is basically the distribution of a
> > modified form of the source itself and hence under the same licence as
> > the source itself.
> >
> > Declaring the copyright of the source covers any reformatting of the
> > source which occurs during the building/packaging/distribution
> > process.
>
> Even in this case?

I don't see that this case is any different to any of my own packages
which use tools like doxygen to generate documentation - including
adding images, stylesheets and (optionally) javascript - from the
comments in the source code. The generated documentation retains my
copyright (alongside other upstream authors) because the content comes
directly from the copyrighted source code. Simple.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 07-19-2011, 06:11 AM
Neil Williams
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:23:01 -0400
Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:

> > I don't personally think it's interesting or relevant to record in
> > debian/copyright the license of generated files, and there is certainly
> > nothing in Policy that requires you to do this. Why do you ask?
>
>
> My sponsor requested me to add debian/copyright entries for files in the
> generated HTML documentation. The documentation is generated by Sphinx,
> and Sphinx adds some templates and js libraries which are then covered
> (at least that's what I believe) by the Sphinx license rather then the
> license of the documentation source files.
>
> On one hand it makes sense to me that /usr/share/[package]/copyright
> should contains information about all files in [package]. But on the
> other hand it doesn't make sense to me to add something like
> "debian/tmp/..." into my copyright file...

doc/html/*

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 07-19-2011, 08:26 AM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:

> My sponsor requested me to add debian/copyright entries for files in the
> generated HTML documentation. The documentation is generated by Sphinx,
> and Sphinx adds some templates and js libraries which are then covered
> (at least that's what I believe) by the Sphinx license rather then the
> license of the documentation source files.

..and configure scripts have parts of autotools, Makefile.ins contain
code from automake, and even compiled binaries contain stuff that
originates from the compiler.

I don't think these should be documented in debian/copyright, that'd
lead to an endless list, in every single package in the archive.

The copyright file should - in my opinion- document the licenses of that
single package, not the licenses of itself, and everything else that is
used to build it

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87fwm2fzgj.fsf@balabit.hu">http://lists.debian.org/87fwm2fzgj.fsf@balabit.hu
 
Old 07-19-2011, 08:54 AM
Sven Hoexter
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:26:36AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:

Hi,

> ..and configure scripts have parts of autotools, Makefile.ins contain
> code from automake, and even compiled binaries contain stuff that
> originates from the compiler.
>
> I don't think these should be documented in debian/copyright, that'd
> lead to an endless list, in every single package in the archive.
>
> The copyright file should - in my opinion- document the licenses of that
> single package, not the licenses of itself, and everything else that is
> used to build it

It's obvious that it's a very tedious task to look into *every* file to
document every copyright statement. IIRC the maintainer for bigger
packages already ranted about that the last time this has been discussed.

My own experience so far was that you often find unclear or otherwise
strange copyright notes. I would even go so far to conclude that a lot
of OSS developers are rather sloppy when it comes to copyright assignments,
license checks. Let alone the use of the GPL file header for every source
file.

The question is what should be achieved with d/copyright?
Give just a short overview over the main parts of the package or a complete
overview of the complete package contents?

Since http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
I try to document every file with a copyright statement even if it's
auto generated. After all someone could reuse it as it is.

Sven


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110719085418.GA23864@niap.stormbind.net">http://lists.debian.org/20110719085418.GA23864@niap.stormbind.net
 
Old 07-19-2011, 09:13 AM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

Sven Hoexter <sven@timegate.de> writes:

> The question is what should be achieved with d/copyright?
> Give just a short overview over the main parts of the package or a complete
> overview of the complete package contents?

My understanding is, that it should be a complete overview of the source
licenses. I do not treat generated files as source, because,
well... they're not.

They might come in the source tarball, like the autotools-generated
stuff usually do, but they're still generated, and I still wouldn't
consider them part of the source.

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87bowqfxaj.fsf@balabit.hu">http://lists.debian.org/87bowqfxaj.fsf@balabit.hu
 
Old 07-19-2011, 11:39 PM
Charles Plessy
 
Default DEP5 Copyright Question

Le Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:13:24AM +0200, Gergely Nagy a Ă©crit :
>
> My understanding is, that it should be a complete overview of the source
> licenses. I do not treat generated files as source, because,
> well... they're not.
>
> They might come in the source tarball, like the autotools-generated
> stuff usually do, but they're still generated, and I still wouldn't
> consider them part of the source.

Hi Gergely,

note that it is difficult to know if a file was auto-generated without
inspecting it. In the past I was routinely ignoring the m4 folders as I
thought they only contained files distributed with Autoconf, but recently I
realised that they also contain original works under a variety of copyrights
and licenses…

Luckily, when files are autogenerated, it is not much work for you:

- If their source is distributed in the same source package, it is not needed
to repeat their copyrights and licenses. The DEP 5 format provides with its
Files field an easy way to include them them with to the description of their
source.

- If their source is distributed in another Debian package, you can cut and
paste from this package's copyright file.

For the files distributed in autoconf packages, it seems informally accepted to
ignore them completely. But there are no written guidelines explaining how
this tolerance can be expanded or not to other autogenerated files.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110719233910.GA4574@merveille.plessy.net">http://lists.debian.org/20110719233910.GA4574@merveille.plessy.net
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:39 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org