[Debian-med-packaging] FDL with no invariant sections

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:09:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > 
> > I realised that lintian is claiming:
> > 
> > $ dget http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emboss/emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
> > $ lintian emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc 
> > E: emboss source: license-problem-gfdl-invariants doc/manuals/admin.tex invariant part is: url{http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html , version 1.1 or any later version published by the free software foundation; with no invariant sections, with no front-cover texts, and with no back-cover texts
> 
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> isn't that a false positive from Lintian ?

Well, this is what I wanted to hear after I probably reacted too quickly
yesterday.  From my point of view lintian is wrong - that's why I quoted
the Wiki.  But I wanted to hear other opinions.
 
> The Lintian tag is for files “licensed under GFDL with invariant section or…”,
> but both the error message and the full copyright notice confirm that it is not
> the case here.
> 
>     Copyright (c) 2000, 2002 David Martin, Peter Rice, Alan Bleasby.
>     
>     Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
>     under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
>     License\URL{http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html}, Version 1.1 or any
>     later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
>     Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover
>     Texts.  A copy of the license is included in the chapter entitled "GNU
>     Free Documentation License".
> 
> Have a nice day,

Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
is much harm done with my stripped upload?  As far as I remember a new
EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can
reinclude thes files again instead of using an epoch to reactivate the
old tarball.  What do you think?

Kind regards

      Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de