[Pkg-cracklib-commits] [pkg-cracklib] 05/06: change debian/copyright to machine readable format
Jan Dittberner
jandd at moszumanska.debian.org
Sun Oct 5 22:01:27 UTC 2014
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
jandd pushed a commit to branch master
in repository pkg-cracklib.
commit 1ff66adc00e3b8cc33c6fb18a0f15a2bb671407c
Author: Jan Dittberner <jandd at debian.org>
Date: Sun Oct 5 23:40:58 2014 +0200
change debian/copyright to machine readable format
---
debian/changelog | 1 +
debian/copyright | 414 +++++--------------------------------------------------
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 378 deletions(-)
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index d9fd9eb..0c30c2b 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ cracklib2 (2.9.2-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
* remove compile and python/cracklib.egg-info in debian/rules
override_dh_auto_clean to avoid unintended upstream changes
* add README-DAWG and README-LICENSE to debian/libcrack2.docs
+ * change debian/copyright to machine readable format
-- Jan Dittberner <jandd at debian.org> Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:03:52 +0200
diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright
index 0134dd3..389fcaa 100644
--- a/debian/copyright
+++ b/debian/copyright
@@ -1,379 +1,37 @@
-This package was debianized by Jean Pierre LeJacq
-<jplejacq at quoininc.com> on Wed, 25 Feb 1998. Martin Pitt
-<martin at piware.de> was the package's maintainer up to version
-2.7.19-1. The current maintainer is Jan Dittberner
-<jandd at debian.org>.
+Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
+Upstream-Name: cracklib
+Upstream-Contact: Nathan Neulinger <nneul at umr.edu>
+Source: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cracklib
+
+Files: *
+Copyright: 1993 Alec Muffett <alecm at crypto.dircon.co.uk>
+ 2005-2014 Nathan Neulinger <nneul at umr.edu>
+ 2008-2014 Jan Dittberner <jan at dittberner.info>
+License: LGPL-2.1
+Comment:
+ Starting from version 2.8.15 released on 2009-11-19 cracklib is licensed under the terms of the LGPL 2.1. For a detailed discussion and history see README-LICENSE.
+
+Files: debian/*
+Copyright: 1998 Jean Pierre LeJacq
+ Martin Pitt <martin at piware.de>
+ Jan Dittberner <jandd at debian.org>
+License: LGPL-2.1
+
+License: LGPL-2.1
+ This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
+ published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the
+ License, or (at your option) any later version.
+ .
+ This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+ WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+ Lesser General Public License for more details.
+ .
+ A copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1 is available as
+ /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1 in the Debian GNU/Linux
+ distribution or on the World Wide Web at
+ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. You can also
+ obtain it by writing to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51
+ Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
-It was downloaded from http://sourceforge.net/projects/cracklib
-
-Copyright (c) 1993 Alec Muffett <alecm at crypto.dircon.co.uk>,
-Copyright (c) 2005-2009 Nathan Neulinger <nneul at umr.edu>,
-Copyright (c) 2008-2009 Jan Dittberner <jan at dittberner.info>
-
-Modifications: Added cronjob, configuration file, and man pages.
-
-This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
-it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
-published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the
-License, or (at your option) any later version.
-
-This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
-WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
-MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
-Lesser General Public License for more details.
-
-A copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1 is available as
-/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1 in the Debian GNU/Linux
-distribution or on the World Wide Web at
-http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. You can also
-obtain it by writing to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51
-Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
-
-Copyright information:
-
-CrackLib was originally licensed with a variant of the Artistic
-license. In the interests of wider acceptance and more modern
-licensing, it was switched with the original author's blessing to GPL
-v2.
-
-This approval was carried out in email discussions in 2005, and has
-been reconfirmed as of 2007-10-01 with the following email from Alec
-Muffett. Cracklib's license was changed from the GPL to the LGPL after
-consensus of all previous developers in October 2008, effective with
-release 2.8.15 released on 2009-11-19. See the email discussion below
-for both license changes.
-
-
--------------------------------------
-
-
------------
-EFFECTIVE OCT 2008, LICENSE IS BEING CHANGED TO LGPL-2.1 (though not reflected
-in released code until Nov 2009 - slow release cycle...)
------------
-
-Discussion thread from mailing list archive, with approval from everyone actively
-involved or holding original licensing rights included.
-
-
-[Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
-From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2007-10-02 01:16
-
-Attachments: Message as HTML
-looks like 2.8.11 is out and marked as "GPL-2" ... releasing libraries unde=
-r=20
-GPL-2 is not desirable at all ... this is why the LGPL-2.1 exists
-=2Dmike
-
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul at um...> - 2007-10-02 01:18
- I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec directly
- and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this point,
- it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what it was
- released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
- clarification of the licensing that was already in place.=20
-
- -- Nathan
- =20
- ------------------------------------------------------------
- Nathan Neulinger EMail: nneul at um...
- University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679
- UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216
-
- > -----Original Message-----
- > From: cracklib-devel-bounces at li...
- > [mailto:cracklib-devel-bounces at li...] On Behalf Of
- > Mike Frysinger
- > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:15 PM
- > To: cracklib-devel at li...
- > Subject: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- >=20
- > looks like 2.8.11 is out and marked as "GPL-2" ... releasing
- > libraries under
- > GPL-2 is not desirable at all ... this is why the LGPL-2.1 exists
- > -mike
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2007-10-02 01:33
-
- Attachments: Message as HTML
- On Monday 01 October 2007, Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
- > I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec directly
- > and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this point,
- > it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what it was
- > released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
- > clarification of the licensing that was already in place.
-
- the original license (before moving to sourceforge -- aka, 2.7) was not=20
- GPL-2 ... it was a modified artistic license ... i didnt notice the license=
- =20
- change until it was mentioned in the latest notes.
-
- unlike the old license, GPL-2 prevents people from using cracklib unless th=
- eir=20
- applications are also GPL-2 which imo is just wrong. it isnt the place of =
- a=20
- library to dictact to application writes what license they should be using.=
- =20
- thus LGPL-2.1 enters to fill this void.
- =2Dmike
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul at um...> - 2007-10-02 01:46
- Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
- maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
- decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
- much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small bit of
- additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine by me.
-
- -- Nathan
- =20
- ------------------------------------------------------------
- Nathan Neulinger EMail: nneul at um...
- University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679
- UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216
-
- > -----Original Message-----
- > From: cracklib-devel-bounces at li...
- > [mailto:cracklib-devel-bounces at li...] On Behalf Of
- > Mike Frysinger
- > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:33 PM
- > To: Neulinger, Nathan
- > Cc: cracklib-devel at li...; Alec Muffett
- > Subject: Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- >=20
- > On Monday 01 October 2007, Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
- > > I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec
- > directly
- > > and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this
- > point,
- > > it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what
- > it was
- > > released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
- > > clarification of the licensing that was already in place.
- >=20
- > the original license (before moving to sourceforge -- aka, 2.7) was
- > not
- > GPL-2 ... it was a modified artistic license ... i didnt notice the
- > license
- > change until it was mentioned in the latest notes.
- >=20
- > unlike the old license, GPL-2 prevents people from using cracklib
- > unless their
- > applications are also GPL-2 which imo is just wrong. it isnt the
- > place of a
- > library to dictact to application writes what license they should
- > be using.
- > thus LGPL-2.1 enters to fill this void.
- > -mike
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Alec Muffett <alecm at cr...> - 2007-10-02 08:57
- > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
- > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
- > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
- > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
- > bit of
- > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
- > by me.
-
- I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
-
- What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
- linked with any code, not just GPL...
-
- -a
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Devin Reade <gdr at gn...> - 2007-10-02 15:04
- I would like to see it under LGPL as well. I think it is in everyone's
- best interests to have as secure systems as possible, and I think tainting
- it via GPL will just make it less likely that the library gets used, and
- will not usually cause companies/developers to GPL the dependent code
- (where it is not already GPL).
-
- I like GPL, I use it when I can, but I don't think that it's the correct
- license in this situation.
-
- Devin
- --
- If it's sinful, it's more fun.
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin at re...> - 2008-01-28 16:32
- On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
- > > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
- > > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
- > > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
- > > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
- > > bit of
- > > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
- > > by me.
- >
- > I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
- >
- > What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
- > linked with any code, not just GPL...
-
- My apologies for not chiming in in anything resembling a reasonable
- timeframe.
-
- I'd also suggest the LGPL, for the reason you noted above. Alternately,
- GPLv2 with the option of using the library under a later version of the
- GPL would permit applications which were released under version 3 of the
- GPL to use the library, too, which would be sufficient for the packages
- which are included in Fedora. FWIW, I'd personally lean toward LGPL.
-
- In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
-
- Cheers,
-
- Nalin
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2008-10-05 21:27
-
- Attachments: Message as HTML
- On Monday 28 January 2008, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
- > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
- > > > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
- > > > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
- > > > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
- > > > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
- > > > bit of
- > > > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
- > > > by me.
- > >
- > > I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
- > >
- > > What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
- > > linked with any code, not just GPL...
- >
- > My apologies for not chiming in in anything resembling a reasonable
- > timeframe.
- >
- > I'd also suggest the LGPL, for the reason you noted above. Alternately,
- > GPLv2 with the option of using the library under a later version of the
- > GPL would permit applications which were released under version 3 of the
- > GPL to use the library, too, which would be sufficient for the packages
- > which are included in Fedora. FWIW, I'd personally lean toward LGPL.
- >
- > In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
-
- looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we make
- the change now ?
- -mike
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Alec Muffett <alecm at cr...> - 2008-10-05 23:18
- >> In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
- >
- > looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we make
- > the change now ?
-
- yes. go for it. thanks++
-
- -a
-
-
- Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
- From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2008-10-25 22:34
-
- Attachments: Message as HTML
- On Sunday 05 October 2008, Alec Muffett wrote:
- > >> In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
- > >
- > > looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we
- > > make the change now ?
- >
- > yes. go for it. thanks++
-
- Nathan Neulinger is the only one who can actually make said change ...
- -mike
-
-
-
------------
-BELOW IS ORIGINAL LICENSING DISCUSSION RE CHANGING TO GPL from Artistic.
------------
-
-CrackLib was originally licensed with a variant of the Artistic license. In the
-interests of wider acceptance and more modern licensing, it was switched with
-the original author's blessing to GPL v2.
-
-This approval was carried out in email discussions in 2005, and has been reconfirmed
-as of 2007-10-01 with the following email from Alec Muffett.
-
-The below email references nneul at umr.edu address, as that is the address
-that was used at the time. For any future emails regarding this, please
-use nneul at neulinger.org.
-
-
--------------------------------------
-
-
-From alecm at crypticide.com Mon Oct 1 12:26:03 2007
-Received: from umr-exproto2.cc.umr.edu ([131.151.0.192]) by UMR-CMAIL1.umr.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
- Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:26:03 -0500
-Received: from scansrv2.srv.mst.edu ([131.151.1.114]) by umr-exproto2.cc.umr.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
- Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:26:02 -0500
-Received: (qmail 8022 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2007 16:59:55 -0000
-Received: from smtp1.srv.mst.edu (131.151.1.43)
- by scanin-ipvs.cc.umr.edu with SMTP; 1 Oct 2007 16:59:55 -0000
-Received: from spunkymail-mx8.g.dreamhost.com (mx1.spunky.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.47])
- by smtp1.srv.mst.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l91Gxtpr020623
- for <nneul at umr.edu>; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:59:55 -0500
-Received: from rutherford.zen.co.uk (rutherford.zen.co.uk [212.23.3.142])
- by spunkymail-mx8.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7734D311
- for <nneul at neulinger.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
-Received: from [82.68.43.14] (helo=[192.168.1.3])
- by rutherford.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
- id 1IcOcX-0004Qt-6L
- for nneul at neulinger.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:59:49 +0000
-Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
-In-Reply-To: <1b1b3fd80710010908k11dac0afp1f2dd471059ff9a4 at mail.gmail.com>
-References: <1190922867.3457.147.camel at localhost.localdomain> <EC90713277D2BE41B7110CCD74E235CEF44F38 at UMR-CMAIL1.umr.edu> <1b1b3fd80710010908k11dac0afp1f2dd471059ff9a4 at mail.gmail.com>
-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
-Message-Id: <117A1264-F6DC-4E25-B0DD-56FBFEBE6E9F at crypticide.com>
-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-From: Alec Muffett <alecm at crypticide.com>
-Subject: Re: cracklib license
-Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:59:46 +0100
-To: Nathan Neulinger <nneul at neulinger.org>
-X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
-X-Originating-Rutherford-IP: [82.68.43.14]
-Return-Path: alecm at crypticide.com
-X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2007 17:26:03.0008 (UTC) FILETIME=[2420C000:01C80450]
-Status: RO
-Content-Length: 585
-Lines: 21
-
->
-> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
-> From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul at umr.edu>
-> Date: Sep 27, 2007 2:58 PM
-> Subject: RE: cracklib license
-> To: alecm at crypto.dircon.co.uk
->
-> Any chance you could write me a self-contained email stating clearly
-> that the license is being changed to GPL, so I could include that
-> email
-> in the repository and clean up the repository/tarballs? I have all the
-> original discussion, but something succinct and self contained
-> would be
-> ideal.
-
-The license for my code in the Cracklib distribution is henceforth GPL.
-
-Happy now? :-)
-
- -a
--
Alioth's /usr/local/bin/git-commit-notice on /srv/git.debian.org/git/pkg-cracklib/pkg-cracklib.git
More information about the Pkg-cracklib-commits
mailing list