[Pkg-fonts-devel] fontforge_20160404~dfsg-1_i386.changes REJECTED

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2016-07-21 16:59:08)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> writes:
> 
> > Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2016-07-21 16:19:18)
> >> Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> writes:
> >>> can you please take care of all those lintian warnings like:
> >>>  W: fontforge source: file-without-copyright-information ...
> >>
> >> There is no copyright on those files. So I've asked upstream to 
> >> clarify here ¹ and a related pull request is here ².
> >>
> >> Earlier we asked upstream about the copyright related issue ³ and Dave 
> >> Crossland from upstream mentioned that copyright for these files can 
> >> be collectively referenced as "The Fontforge Authors", I could have 
> >> added a wild card catch all with this information but that does not 
> >> feel right because its job of author to assign copyright and not of 
> >> the packager.
> >>
> >> So in short the issue is already notified to upstream and all these 
> >> files are collectively licensed as GPL-3 and copyrighted collectively 
> >> as "The Fontforge Authors".
> >
> > What Thorsten/ftp-masters request is to "take care of lintian warnings", 
> > not specifically that those files be treated as copyright-protected.
> 
> Aye understood. Thanks for clarification.

Uhm, interpretation, not clarification: I speak for myself - cannot read 
the minds of the ftpmasters (only between the lines of their emails).


> > Those lintian warnings are (roughly) that files distributed doesn't 
> > match files covered in debian/copyright.
> >
> > One way to "take care of it" is to override lintian.
> >
> > Another (better, IMO) approach is to list the files in debian/copyright 
> > - i.e. add one or more sections covering group(s) of files without 
> > copyright and licensing, with comments on why it is deemed legally ok 
> > for us to distribute anyway.
> 
> I think I will go with second approach and list down the files without 
> copyright information. Regarding Licensing can't we assign collective 
> license here?..

Not sure what you mean.

If you mean license for files without copyright, who then issued the 
license?

If you mean license for the project as a whole, then Debian does not 
track that yet, because we have not yet grown tools nor procedures nor 
policies on how to verify it: The copyright file arguably has space to 
declare it (the header section) but I recommend to simply skip it: 
Upstream has shared with us their interpretation on what they guess will 
be the resulting licensing terms of our compiling sourcecode licensed by 
them in our environment, but really they cannot know what we effectively 
link together, e.g. with differently licensed patches applied...


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20160721/8ebec380/attachment.sig>