[Pkg-gridengine-devel] Files excluded

[Dave Love]

Sorry, I realize I never responded to some previous messages.

Afif Elghraoui <afif at ghraoui.name> writes:

> Thanks for getting back to me on all my messages--
>
> On الأحد 18 تشرين الأول 2015 11:30, Dave Love wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> > I've just about finished the copyright file,
>> I'm afraid it's clearly incomplete, as it must be.  You can get an idea
>> from AUTHORS and Changelog.  A significant amount, like Shannon
>> Davidson's contributions, actually predates the free release and version
>> control.
>>
>
> I'll review AUTHORS and Changelog, but I just grepped the code for
> copyright declarations and added them with the associated licenses.

AUTHORS was my best effort, but I doubt it's complete.  I just don't see
why this matters, especially considering all the unlisted authors for
the Linux packaging, amongst others.

>> What I did can have any appropriate free licence.  I didn't add one as
>> there wasn't anything originally.  (I don't understand how this is a
>> problem if it wasn't originally; I can't remember whether I've seen any
>> policy on it, but Fedora has a default of MIT, and I've had my notices
>> on spec files questioned.)
>> 
>
> This isn't really a problem and probably a silly question for me to have
> asked in the first place, but I sort of meant the question to be another
> ping to the mailing list.
> Debian packaging is supposed to have a DFSG-compliant license. I think
> the default is whatever the upstream license is (at least for packages
> in main), so I will just put it as SISSL.

I'd suggest using a simple permissive licence, not SISSL.

> There is actually another set of files in source/3rdparty/qmon/spinbox/
> that I have some suspicions about. I won't bother you with the details
> since the issue also appears to exist in what Fedora distributes and
> what Univa is distributing on github. I will probably ask ftp-master or
> the people on debian-legal.

Could you explain?

>> I don't understand some of the removals.  What's wrong with ldAIX?
>
> Nothing was wrong--it just looked to me that it wasn't necessary for the
> Debian package and I didn't want to have to document its copyright and
> license. I could do that now that I've had a long break from rewriting
> debian/copyright.

Does that actually need doing if it's not installed?

I should probably remove the experimental directory from the
distribution.