Bug#741419: missing license in debian/copyright

Markus Koschany apo at gambaru.de
Tue Mar 18 09:26:03 UTC 2014

On Mon, 17. Mar 20:38 Thorsten Alteholz <alteholz at debian.org> wrote:
> >Upstream just states that their own license is _similar_ to the Apache
> >license.
> But this is not true. It is similar to an ancient version. It is by
> far not similar to what is nowadays called "Apache license". But
> this is bean counting and has nothing todo with the real problem.

The whole bug report is bean counting. There is either a problem with
wrong licenses and a policy violation or not. Please take a closer took
at those files. None of them is licensed under the Apache license. It is
completely absurd what you are implying here.

> >I can only come to the conclusion that the correct severity of this bug
> >report should be either wishlist or minor. There is no policy violation.
> Ok, I admit that I am not a writer and my wording might be ambigious
> sometimes. So please tell me what you didn't understand so far.
> Maybe you want to refresh your memory by looking at some articles in
> the Wikipedia?

After your clarification the remaining issues seem to be hamlet.xml,
catalog.xml and catalog.xsl. All of them were once granted to the public
domain. The catalog files were taken from ibiblio.org. I thought it was
obvious but all files on ibiblio.org are in the public domain.


There is no need to remove anything from the sources. A new derivative
work, jdom2, was created based on these free xml files. If you take one
step back and look at the package description, you will see that jdom2
is a XML library. In my opinion it is perfectly clear that those xml
files are not used in their original context anymore but are now part of a
program that analyzes and modifies XML content. They are not simply put
together with other files, they are part of this xml library.

I personally perceive this bug report as unhelpful and as a special form
of nitpicking. It simply monopolizes the free time of others for no good
reasons. I still don't see any evidence that this package is not
DFSG-compliant or that there is a policy violation.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 966 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20140318/00b5afb6/attachment.sig>

More information about the pkg-java-maintainers mailing list