[Tahoe-debian] debian/copyright

[micah anderson]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:14:39 -0600, "Zooko O'Whielacronx" <zooko at zooko.com> wrote:
> Is there a known reason these messages aren't appearing on the archive?
> 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/tahoe-debian/2011-June/date.html
> 
> I would like to link to these messages from the Tahoe-LAFS issue tracker.

Hmm, I didn't notice that, I'll ask the admins to see if I can figure
out what is causing that.

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:53 PM, micah <micah at riseup.net> wrote:
> >
> > First, here are the changes to the debian/copyright:
> >
> >  . updated Copyright to span 2011 after finding some file that declares
> >   it
> >  . removed duplicate pointer to the GPL
> >  . removed pointer to the LGPL, since the source never declares that
> >   license
> >  . re-ordered things to be more clear
> >  . removed the section on mac/fuse.py and mac/fuseparts/subbedopts.py as
> >   those files don't seem to exist anywhere in the source we have
> >  . removed the section on src/allmydata/util/figleaf.py as that file
> >   doesn't exist anywhere (and it declares a BSD license, which would need
> >   to be clarified about which BSD license)
> >  . removed the copy of the BSD license, which was a bit strange because
> >   it said Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>, and didn't say what source
> >   fell under that license.
> 
> We should adopt these changes upstream.

these are changes to debian/copyright, which are updates to the file
that was included in the ubuntu package. I'm not sure how relevant these
are to upstream, unless you want to incorporate them in the PKG-INFO or
COPYRIGHT files, or so?

> >  . there is an embedded setuptools (setuptools-0.6c16dev3.egg), which is
> >  licensed under the PSF or ZPL. I'm not sure I know what the PSF
> >  license is, and ZPL is probably Zope Public Licnese? Can someone
> >  clarify? Whatever these are it needs to be declared in the
> >  debian/copyright file.
> 
> You can see the licence names spelled out more completely further down
> in setuptools's setup.py file. Lines 86 and 87 say:
> 
> http://svn.python.org/view/sandbox/trunk/setuptools/setup.py?view=markup#l86
> 
> License :: OSI Approved :: Python Software Foundation License
> License :: OSI Approved :: Zope Public License

Thanks for that! I updated the debian/copyright with that information.

> >  . setuptools_darcs-1.2.12.egg is licensed under "BSD" - but it doesn't
> >   say what BSD, I believe we need clarification if this is the
> >   two-clause, three-clause, or million-clause BSD :)
> 
> I am the original upstream author of setuptools_darcs, and my complete
> intended license is this:
> 
> "Permission is hereby granted to any person obtaining a copy of this
> work to deal in this work without restriction (including the rights to
> use, modify, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies)."
> 
> http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/setuptools_darcs/browser/trunk/setup.py?annotate=blame&rev=74#L6

Ok... is that the BSD license, if not is it some other known license, or
another one that you have made up? I dont see the EGG-INFO/PKG-INFO file
in your upstream source anymore, which is where it was noted as BSD.

I notice this is the same license denoted in darcsver too:

http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/darcsver/browser/trunk/setup.py#L7

> >  . worse than above is that these are modified and embedded setuptools,
> >   and it appears, based on my poor reading of setup.py, that they are
> >   used for the build process.
> 
> This is correct. This is modified and embedded setuptools which is
> used for the build process.

What are the modifications that are needed that aren't there already?

Thanks for your answers to the questions!

micah
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/tahoe-debian/attachments/20110617/1f0c44a0/attachment.pgp>