emilien+debian at klein.st
Thu Apr 10 05:36:41 UTC 2014
Sorry for the delayed answer.
2014-04-04 1:39 GMT+02:00 François-Régis <frv-debian at miradou.com>:
> Hi Emilien,
> Le 04/04/2014 00:02, Emilien Klein a écrit :
>> 2014-04-03 23:52 GMT+02:00 François-Régis <frv-debian at miradou.com>:
>>> Le 03/04/2014 22:46, Emilien Klein a écrit :
>>>> 2014-04-01 23:08 GMT+02:00 François-Régis <frv-debian at miradou.com>:
>>>>> I've pushed jquery-simpletreemenu on anonscm , could someone have a
>>>>> look at it and tell me how horrible it is ?
>>>> - d/copyright:
>>>> * inconsistent name of upstream contact (Freytag vs. Freitag).
>>>> According to github, it's "Simon Freytag"
>>> You're right, done.
>>>> * Include upstream email address as part of Upstream-Contact (from
>>>> his website: simon at freytag.org.uk)
>>> Did'nt find it, thank you, done.
>> As a side note, regarding the discussion around the copyright file in
>> general, since the use of that format is optional anyway, I guess this
>> is indeed more of a best-practice approach (standardized way to find
>> the upstream maintainer's name and contact details) should someone
>> need to get in touch with him/her. But that's thus likely also open to
>> interpretation, so don't take that as word of law.
> I was writing a response but short story : french law does'nt accept you
> to give up your authoring on anything but you can give up or sell any
> use of it.
> In fact the french law is ; whatever you might have say, signed
> contracted or whatever, you're still the author. And depending on what
> you have authored, you can claim to the respect of your work.
> As the common practice is to put the debian packaging stuff under the
> same licence as upstream, adding the packager name in copyright has no
> effect regarding french law.
Please tell me if I'm following you right:
- You are fine with the licensing of your works be under the same
license as upstream
- French law mandates you stay the author, and as such claim copyright
on your works
- Because you're fine with same-as-upstream license and French law
indicating you are copyright owner, you don't deem necessary to
indicate you are the copyright owner of the debian/* files
If that's correct, I'd say let's prevent any future misunderstanding,
and just add the extra 3-4 lines explicitly indicating your copyright.
That way, if someone else picks up the packaging in 3-4 years and
considerably rewrites it (e.g. splitting package with an example or
demo package, or integrates it directly in js-goodies) there will be
no time-consuming "hunt" to try to figure who owns the copyright,
under what license, trying to contact you, not reaching you should you
have stopped contributing to Debian, etc.
Again, if you're clear on your intentions it's better to just state
them explictly. For a highly distributed structure as Debian,
depending on implicit is not always easy ;)
>>>> * you have to mention the copyright on the debian/* files (you can
>>>> use same-as-upstream, but have to list yourself as copyright holder)
>>> See next mail.
>> (you might already have seen my response to David)
> Next mail was not supposed to be this on but it is
>>>> * Upstream-Name is incorrect (likely "Simple Tree Menu")
>>> You're (again) right, my Upstream-Name is wrong. What induce you to
>>> propose "Simple Tree Menu" ? Would'nt be better to take the github name:
>>> "Simple-Tree-Menu" ?
>> Simple Tree Menu is the name that is used at all the places on the
>> upstream website:
>> I suspect the dashes in the github repository name is because you
>> can't create a repo name containing spaces?
> I don't know if it's possible,but in fact I don't know what should be
> the upstream name.
To me it's clear: the name that upstream uses consistently on their
website about their product is the upstream name.
The name in the URL of a github repo has a lower priority.
>>>> - d/upstream-changelog: the file ends with "Version 1.5.0: Moved to
>>>> github, effectively ending this changelog; changes will now just be
>>>> the [git log]"
>>>> Do you plan to update it with the actual git log? Otherwise I'm not
>>>> sure this file brings much benefit in including in the Debian package,
>>>> as it will only be a forever outdated changelog.
>>> I've just added this file to have sort of history before github, it's
>>> not intended to be updated as upstream shows they will not maintain
>>> further changelog.
>> I assume (might be wrong) that the benefit of having a changelog file
>> included in the Debian package is for Debian users to be able to
>> review what changed in the e.g. latest version. I assume there is only
>> very limited advantage in what changed 2 years before the package was
>> even included in the Debian archive?
> Honnestly I don't know...
You can include it, but I don't see the benefit. In my opinion, this
can only induce confusion/frustration for the user that really wants
to see what changed in the last version, looking up the file only to
find out it's already several years outdated while a new version was
just installed on his system.
No big deal anyway.
>>> Thanks Emilien, it's always a pleasure to read youre reviews.
>> I'm still pretty new to reviewing, but I guess it's as good as any
>> other way to contribute to making Debian the best possible ;)
> It's always benefit to have review and perhaps fresher are better...