[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Pushed the copyright branch

Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.ledkov at gmail.com
Thu May 21 12:48:22 BST 2009

2009/5/21 Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden at fastmail.fm>:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> I've update debian/copyright to reflect every single file in the
>> distribution.
> Thanks.  BTW, there is am lp:~pkgcrossswire/libsword/copyright branch...
> but it doesn't have your newest version in it, that is in
> lp:~pkgcrosswire/libsword/copyrights -- the only difference being a
> trailing letter 's', which is somewhat confusing :)

I was late at night and I was thinking "i think i had a copyright
branch already.... I'll just push copyrights"

>> I hope I got it about right.
> Close, I think, but see below :)
> Some things I spotted that needed edits:
> (1) Daniel's family name is Glassey -- it was misspelled.

Sorry Daniel.

> (2) include/untgz.h almost certainly has the same copyright as the
> untgz.c file and so should not be treated as one of the other
> bindings/other *.h files.


>  The CrossWire Bible Society
>  P. O. Box 2528
>  Tempe, AZ  85280-2528
> So they have the same post office box address :)

Yeap thanks a lot. Address is usefull.

> (5) The version of the format specification you use (why use 48 when 53
> is out there, incidentally?) has Name:, Maintainer: and Source: fields,
> but you used Upstream-Maintainer:, Upstream-Name: and Upstream-Source:
> instead, which I think are from an older revision?  We need to be
> consistent about that kind of thing, or the whole value of a machine
> readable debian/copyright file is lost.

Upstream-* is from the old wiki revisions. But I don't think 53 is out
there. Svn versions directories and I think 49-53 were changes to
other DEPs. Cause on the page


I get the link go to the most recent revision and it takes me back to 48.

> (6) License: needs to be spelled that way throughout, there is a typo
> "Licesse:" in one place.

It was late at night...

> (7) You had a field "License: zlib/libpng" but never include a licence
> called that later.  I think just "Licence: ZLIB" was intended.


>> X-Remove tag for questionable files with expectation whether we can
>> remove them such that it is still possible to build and run the library
> I see the idea, but I think that "X-Remove: no" has no real value --
> that's the default!  And "X-Remove: some" is pretty vague.  So I'd
> suggest we delete those.


> I also see you are tagging zlib as X-Remove: yes, even though it has a
> free licence.  Does that mean you want it removed from the repacked
> tarball (since we are creating one for other less free files anyway), or
> that we just rm the relevant files early in debian/rules ?

Since we are repackaging might as well get rid of those.  rm files in
debian/rules cause you need to back them up and restore them on
clean...... But clean can be run manually anytime between any
target..... And i don't want to have huge patches which simply remove

>> X-Comment tag for comments =D
> This is fine, if that's what you are supposed to do to add comments --
> it seems a rather obvious omission in the spec to *not* allow them :)

I was hoping we will use this tag only during planning and sort
everything out. And if we don't sort something out I think it would be
a good place to give a one-line comment for the FTP-masters =D

>> And while we are on the topic, how are we licensing the actuall debian
>> packaging????
>> I vote Expat license, e.g. http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
>> This way anyone can adopt debian packaging for whatever needs they have.
> I'd much prefer that we use a very well known licence that is already in
> /usr/share/common-licenses/ in both Debian and Ubuntu, so that we do not
> add to licence proliferation (and to the length of debian/copyright!).
>  I also suggest that we just leave the packaging licence as it was,
> which I think means GPL?  dh_make has a little template for this which says:

Expat is well know BSD-style license which is advertised on
debian-legal a lot. On top of usual BSD freedoms it gives right to
relicense under any license. So it is the only license which is
compatible with every other one. Surely that's the best way to tackle
license proliferation.

>  The Debian packaging is:
>      Copyright (C) #YEAR#, #USERNAME# <#EMAIL#>
>  and is licensed under the GPL
> That's simple, clear, and works for me, though I'd suggest we indicate
> GPL-2+ rather than leaving it undefined which version of the GPL is
> intended.

I'm against GPL because if there is a package out there under
BSD/MIT/X11 they technically won't be able to learn from our packages.

> To be honest, I don't think we're doing anything so clever and unique in
> our packaging that people will be desperate to copy it anyway :)

I don't think either ;) but there might be some beginners who would
stable upon it.

> I just committed all the edits mentioned in this email to the copyrights
> branch.

Cheers! I was already like: "duh I need to go over all of this" =DDDD

> Jonathan

With best regards

Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич

More information about the Pkg-crosswire-devel mailing list