[Debian-med-packaging] liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED [and 2 more messages]

[Ian Jackson]

Julien Cristau writes ("Re: How to specify files not in source package in d/copyright (Was: liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)"):
> On Sat, Aug  6, 2016 at 23:37:03 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > The jquery.js is installed by doxygen in the documentation process.  It
> > does not belong to the source package (the full autogenerated
> > documentation provided by upstream was intentionally removed to avoid
> > compressed JS files).  I wonder why I should add licenses of files that
> > are not part of the source package and do not even have an idea how I
> > could do this syntactically correctly - lintian would claim an unused
> > copyright paragraph and IMHO lintian is correct here.
> 
> I don't think you should.  I believe Thorsten is overreaching in asking
> you to do that.

Are you really saying that it is not necessary for the .deb to contain
the authorship and copyright notices for the contents of the package ?

ISTM that if the .deb contains this jquery.js, then the .deb (or
something it Depends on) must contain the authorship and copyright
notices for that jquery.js.  (This is both an ethical and legal
requirement.)

IMO this doesn't depend on whether this jquery.js results in a
Built-Using.

Helmut Grohne writes ("Re: How to specify files not in source package in d/copyright (Was: liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)"):
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 11:37:03PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > The jquery.js is installed by doxygen in the documentation process.  It
> > does not belong to the source package (the full autogenerated
> > documentation provided by upstream was intentionally removed to avoid
> > compressed JS files).  I wonder why I should add licenses of files that
> > are not part of the source package and do not even have an idea how I
> > could do this syntactically correctly - lintian would claim an unused
> > copyright paragraph and IMHO lintian is correct here.
> 
> I believe that Thorsten was not aware of this common exception.
> Traditionally, Doxygen emebeds a file jquery.js into documentation
> trees. Despite the name, jquery.js is not JQuery, but an compilation of
> various BSD-ish licensed JS libraries. I asked whether dh_doxygen should
> be helping with the creation of Built-Using headers, but no consensus
> was reached on whether they are needed, which is why it doesn't do
> today.

ISTM that in situations where Built-Using is arguably relevant, there
is also often a requirement to make sure the copyright file(s) of the
.deb(s) contains information from the allegedly-Built-Using source
packages.

IMO dh_doxygen should sort this out.

> Instead of blaming this mess on a random Doxygen user, I'd expect
> participation in a discussion on how to solve it for all users.

Certainly I agree with this.

> Though given that doxygen is a key package, it is (like perl) too big to
> fail, so we don't do anything about it beyond documenting[1] the issue.

This is, of course, quite unsatisfactory.

Julien Cristau writes ("Re: liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> The policy text is way too broad, Built-Using is really about GPL
> compliance, and jquery isn't GPL.  See #688251.

I don't think that is true.  I agree with the comments from Paul Wise
and Russ Allbery in
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688251#30
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688251#50

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.