[Pkg-ofed-devel] RFS: qperf

[Brian Smith]

Hi Afif,

re: watch
Thanks for pointing this out. I realized that needed to be revised
when I changed the upstream source and failed to attend to it.

re: "or (at your option) any later version" clause
I really appreciate the attention that you are giving to this and am
trying to understand the concern. All of the language that is in
d/copyright was pulled directly from the installed GPL-2 license,
which is identical to COPYING. The source code only states that GPL-2
may be used and does not state the terms of GPL-2.

Therefore, why is that "at your option" clause problematic?
Brian T. Smith
System Fabric Works
Senior Technical Staff
bsmith at systemfabricworks.com
(512) 293-4472
GPG Key: B3C2C7B73BA3CD7F


On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Afif Elghraoui <afif at debian.org> wrote:
> Hi, Brian,
>
> على الجمعـة 10 تشرين الثاني 2017 ‫15:40، كتب Brian Smith:
>> Hi Afif,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. I've made the changes that you suggested.
>>
>
> Great!
>
>> Also, I've changed the upstream source to the linux-rdma github
>> repository and updated the code to 0.4.10.
>
> Ok. You should also update debian/watch so that it watches github and
> pulls the source from there. You can see examples of github source lines
> in uscan(1).
>
>>
>> Regarding the copyright, BSD should not have been in there and has been
>> removed. COPYING is identical to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2.
>
> License statements in individual file headers override a general license
> statement. I guarantee you that the package will not get past the
> ftpmasters if the BSD license isn't mentioned in d/copyright because of
> this. In any case, the BSD license was small enough to fit into the
> header of each file. The GPL is too big for that, so they distribute it
> as a file by itself. Github sees it and puts a GPL badge on the top, but
> it's not really an explicit statement of the license terms (which is
> actually seen in the source code).
>
> I would keep it organized the way you had before if *every* source file
> has the same header (which looked to me to be the case). If there are
> some that don't say anything, you could do the following:
>
>
> # Every file, unless otherwise specified, is GPL-2
> Files: *
> Copyright: ...
> License: GPL-2
>
> # These files are exceptions and can be used with GPL-2 or
> BSD-2-Clause/OpenIB
> Files:
>     src/file1.*
>     src/file2.*
>     <list all other files that apply statement>
> Copyright: ...
> License: GPL-2 or BSD-2-Clause/OpenIB
>
> *or*, if you're really pretty sure upstream meant to have everything
> GPL-2 only, they should clarify that in the license statements of the
> headers.
>
>> The
>> GPL-2 license section in copyright now contains the GPL-2 notice and a
>> pointer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. Please let me know if that
>> is not the right thing to do.
>
> Your GPL-2 blurb still has the problematic "or (at your option) any
> later version" clause. You can simply delete that string to resolve this
> issue.
>
> Last thing:
>
> You're now working with dh_clean in debian/rules. I believe you meant to
> use dh_auto_clean. dh_clean(1) [1] says "It does not run "make clean" to
> clean up after the build process. Use dh_auto_clean(1) to do things like
> that." You can just s/dh_clean/dh_auto_clean/g debian/rules to handle that.
>
> regards
> Afif
>
>
> 1. https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/debhelper/dh_clean.1.en.html
>
> --
> Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
> http://afif.ghraoui.name
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-ofed-devel mailing list
> Pkg-ofed-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ofed-devel