[Pkg-gridengine-devel] Files excluded (was: License for the debian packaging code)

[Afif Elghraoui]

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.


>> > but I don't know what
>> > license to use for the actual packaging (debian/*). There is no
>> > indication in any file header anywhere nor in the old copyright.
>> >
>> > This would be for the work done by Mark Hymers, Dave Love, and whoever
>> > else worked on the package.
> 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've now removed the non-free qidl stuff.  Thanks -- I think I assumed
> the original distribution was free, and I'm not sure how it was in
> FreeBSD otherwise.
>

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.

> 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.

>  If ps/pdf isn't allowed, why isn't it all removed?
>  Is there guidance
> somewhere on files built by an IDE (QMonNT)?
>

I need to double check those. In my understanding, the ps/pdf files
aren't considered as "source", so they would have to be built (in which
case I should have removed all of them). If I remember correctly, at
least one of the pdf/ps files had non-free copyright, but my memory is
hazy on that as well.

> The copyright situation seems particularly silly if you have to go to
> that trouble for tcsh in gridengine but not for the actual tcsh
> package...
> 

It's definitely the least interesting part of the task. I don't mind
putting the time in to do it right the first time so that I don't have
to think about it anymore.

I just looked at the tcsh package's debian/copyright and it definitely
has some issues. Technically, a bug could be filed against that package
to address them.

Afif

-- 
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name