--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: joddhb$cqh$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/joddhb$cqh$1@dough.gmane.org
05-12-2012, 02:10 AM
Michael Gilbert
Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
>> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
>> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
>> don't include a license. If we're legally fine with that, I'm having a
>> hard time seeing the clear distinction between that and a dependency
>> on another package including the license.
>
>> Surely this has been discussed before? I don't remember seeing it on
>> the debian-policy list since I started working on Policy.
>
> There's a fairly lengthy discussion starting at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00235.html
So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
Succinctly, the copyright file itself is irrelevant in the source
package since the upstream source should have all of that information
already, and at least for the GPL you can distribute source packages
as is. Thus, the issue is reduced to the need for full license texts
only in all binary packages.
That doesn't seem to be a current requirement and copyright file
symlinks are often used today, so perhaps a first step would be to
make that a part of the Debian policy?
Secondly, since the copyright file in the source package doesn't
actually need full license text, license file references should be
allowable there; as long as appropriate helpers are written that can
take those (reference only) source copyright files and fill in the
appropriate full license texts for the binary files that it generates.
Eliminating the tedium of copying, pasting, and reformatting license
texts would be a wonderful simplification and time reducer.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CANTw=MORcrAz-_5Bi0BfO82E6eKhDKpP_g1CYOedcPgS_qh1yQ@mail.gmail.c om">http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MORcrAz-_5Bi0BfO82E6eKhDKpP_g1CYOedcPgS_qh1yQ@mail.gmail.c om
05-12-2012, 02:25 AM
Russ Allbery
Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> writes:
> So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
cogent arguments for why it's wrong and providing a complete copy of the
GPL with binaries is required.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87bolu16gr.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87bolu16gr.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
05-12-2012, 02:37 AM
Charles Plessy
Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
>
> Succinctly, the copyright file itself is irrelevant in the source
> package since the upstream source should have all of that information
> already, and at least for the GPL you can distribute source packages
> as is. Thus, the issue is reduced to the need for full license texts
> only in all binary packages.
Hi all,
given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity --
otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian copyright file
is not necessary from a strictly legal point of view.
It is therefore a facility to our infrastructure and a service to our users,
and it is up to us as a project to decide its contents. One unwritten rule is
that it has to contain all the necessary information for the FTP team to review
the package. A first step in order to lift the requirement to include a verbatim
copy of all licenses that are not distributed in /usr/share/common-licenses
would be to ask the FTP team their opinion on that matter.
Cheers,
--
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: 20120512023757.GB29886@falafel.plessy.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120512023757.GB29886@falafel.plessy.net
05-12-2012, 02:52 AM
Russ Allbery
Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
> -- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
> copyright file is not necessary from a strictly legal point of view.
I don't see the logical justification for this statement. Our compliance
with the GPL does not rely on considering source and binary packages as a
single entity. The GPL explicitly permits us to treat them as two
separate entities and distribute the source separately (which is what we
do).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87r4uqyuui.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87r4uqyuui.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
05-12-2012, 03:04 AM
Charles Plessy
Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:52:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
>
> > given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
> > -- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
> > copyright file is not necessary from a strictly legal point of view.
>
> I don't see the logical justification for this statement. Our compliance
> with the GPL does not rely on considering source and binary packages as a
> single entity. The GPL explicitly permits us to treat them as two
> separate entities and distribute the source separately (which is what we
> do).
After reading again point 3 a) of the GPL v1 and v2, I see that I probably
misunderstood what "medium customarily used for software interchange"
meant. Sorry for the noise.
--
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: 20120512030419.GC29886@falafel.plessy.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120512030419.GC29886@falafel.plessy.net
> " 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
> code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
> and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
> and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
> this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
> recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
> Program."
> To me Program should be read here as "Program in source code form"
Program is explicitly defined in the GPL and that's not what the
definition is.
This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.
So Program is anything with a notice saying that the GPL applies to it.
And since you're required to preserve such a notice in derivative works as
another one of the requirements in point 1 (which is incorporated into
point 3), all derivative works will have such a notice.
It's not phrased very clearly, certainly. The GPL 3 fixes this. But you
have to split a lot of hairs to convince yourself that Program refers only
to source code distributions. (Which didn't stop people in that
discussion from splitting those hairs, but I didn't find it convincing.)
> As to point 3 referring to points 1, it says:
> " 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
> following(…)"
> I don't think it means the object code must provide a license, just that
> the program which is redistributed respect points 1 and 2.
Point 3 says that, when distributing the Program, you have to comply with
all of the requirements of point 1. Point 1 says "...and give any other
recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
In order to believe that this requirement does not apply, you have to
believe that, because point 1 says "the Program's source code" at the
start, that means that it doesn't apply to distributions of the Program
that are not source code, despite the fact that point 3 explicitly says
that the requirements of point 1 apply. I don't think that's a reasonable
interpretation, since by that reading the statement in point 3 that you
have to follow point 1 is meaningless (it doesn't add any additional
requirements). There's a standard rule in US contract law that says that
you must always favor the interpretation of a contract that does not make
parts of the contract meaningless.
The GPL 3 fixes this ambiguity too, btw, by making it explicit that you
have to distribute a copy of the license with binary works, which is more
evidence of what the intent is.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87fwb5rud4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87fwb5rud4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
> > " 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
> > code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
> > and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
> > and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
> > this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
> > recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
> > Program."
> >
> > To me Program should be read here as "Program in source code form"
>
> Program is explicitly defined in the GPL and that's not what the
> definition is.
>
> This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
> notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
> under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
> refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
> means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
> that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
> either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
> language.
>
> So Program is anything with a notice saying that the GPL applies to it.
> And since you're required to preserve such a notice in derivative works as
> another one of the requirements in point 1 (which is incorporated into
> point 3), all derivative works will have such a notice.
Â*
Agreed.
Â*
>
> It's not phrased very clearly, certainly. The GPL 3 fixes this. But you
> have to split a lot of hairs to convince yourself that Program refers only
> to source code distributions. (Which didn't stop people in that
> discussion from splitting those hairs, but I didn't find it convincing.)
Â*
After considering the definition of Program you pasted above, I come now to a new interpretation. I will consider GPL-3 from now on as differences with GPL-2 can be seen as a clarification of the intent of GPL-2.
Â*
My understanding is that Program refers to any form in which the copyrighted work can be expressed. GPL-3 explicitely writes about source form and non-source form of a work. So a Program, whose definition is given as being a copyrighted work under GPL, has a source code form and a object code form. Program doesn't equal object code form but any form.
Â*
Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence, whose structure is: You may convey verbatim copies (…) provided that <item1> ; <item2> ; <item3> ; <item4>.
Â*
I agree that the fact section 6 refers to section 4 is very (at least to me) ambiguous. I think the sentence must be read this way:
Â*
You may convey, in object code, a covered work which is under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that …
Â*
That is, "under the terms of sections 4 and 5" applies to "covered work", not "covered work in object code". Maybe I'm just reading it the way I want to read it. However the structure of section 4 really leads me to consider only source code. The whole section is dedicated to source code redistribution, object code has nothing to do with it as it is the object of section 6.
Â*
Also, since the license always requires the source to be distributed, it doesn't seem very important to have the license in both binary code and source code.
Â*
>
> > As to point 3 referring to points 1, it says:
> >
> > " 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
> > following(…)"
> >
> > I don't think it means the object code must provide a license, just that
> > the program which is redistributed respect points 1 and 2.
>
> Point 3 says that, when distributing the Program, you have to comply with
> all of the requirements of point 1. Point 1 says "...and give any other
> recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
>
> In order to believe that this requirement does not apply, you have to
> believe that, because point 1 says "the Program's source code" at the
> start, that means that it doesn't apply to distributions of the Program
> that are not source code, despite the fact that point 3 explicitly says
> that the requirements of point 1 apply. I don't think that's a reasonable
> interpretation, since by that reading the statement in point 3 that you
> have to follow point 1 is meaningless (it doesn't add any additional
> requirements). There's a standard rule in US contract law that says that
> you must always favor the interpretation of a contract that does not make
> parts of the contract meaningless.
Â*
You should consider however that point 3 deals about distributing the source with the binary code and point 1 would apply to this source.
Â*
>
> The GPL 3 fixes this ambiguity too, btw, by making it explicit that you
> have to distribute a copy of the license with binary works, which is more
> evidence of what the intent is.
Â*
Huh? Where?
Â*
Best regards.
Â*
Thomas Preud'homme
05-13-2012, 10:51 PM
Michael Gilbert
Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Russ Allbery:
>> So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
>
>> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
>
> I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
> cogent arguments for why it's wrong and providing a complete copy of the
> GPL with binaries is required.
Hmmm, I really meant that I found point 1 to be quite astute. I
agree, the conclusion is quite off. The copyright file is very
important in binary packages, and should have full-text licenses.
The important aspect of point 1 is the conclusion that at least with
the GPL you can distribute any source release as is; meaning that our
additional work on the full-text copyright file in the source package
is unnecessary.
I think this distinction between the needs of the source package
copyright file and binary package copyright file is very useful, and
can help steer towards a much simplified source copyright file, and
yet still satisfy the requirement for full-text binary copyright
files.
Best wishes,
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CANTw=MPvCms97vy5z9aUaZYkEWxKYe4ae8ShnFnmEQxW5tOwN g@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MPvCms97vy5z9aUaZYkEWxKYe4ae8ShnFnmEQxW5tOwN g@mail.gmail.com
Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
