Bug#741419: missing license in debian/copyright

Thorsten Alteholz alteholz at debian.org
Tue Mar 18 13:52:59 UTC 2014

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 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 cite again:
"<name>Similar to Apache License but with the acknowledgment clause 
here we have the Apache License.

It is interesting that you copy the least important point to the 

> 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.

You are funny, do you expect that everybody knows all websites? As 
licenses might change over time, such stuff needs to be documentend 
somewhere witbin the package. I would suggest debian/copyright

According to your own arguments the file hamlet.xml now is under the jdom2 
license. Is ibiblio.org in violation of this license?

> A new derivative
> work, jdom2, was created based on these free xml files.

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
The underlying work are the three files mentioned above.

> 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.

The context does not matter, the content of the single file is important.

> They are not simply put
> together with other files, they are part of this xml library.

The file hamlet.xml has been just copied from ibiblio.org and put into 
the package. I did not find any differences. So where are the substantial 
changes that would make it a derivative work?

> I personally perceive this bug report as unhelpful and as a special form
> of nitpicking.

It is my assignment to nit-pick. So thanks for acknowledging my work.

>                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.

The file debian/copyright of the package is incomplete. This is a 
violation of policy.


More information about the pkg-java-maintainers mailing list