ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Do, Dez 01, 2011 at 04:13:35 (CET), Felipe Sateler wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 00:16, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> On 11-11-21 at 11:25am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>> > Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in
>>> > debian/copyright. The license name contains spaces, and doesn't
>>> > match any License: paragraph.
>>
>> I guess what you find strange is license names of this form:
>>
>> License: GPL-2+ with Libtool exception
>>
>> That, I believe, is perfectly correct according to (latest drafts of)
>> DEP-5.  Please elaborate what you find strange about it.
>
> I do not know what is the current status of DEP5. What I found strange
> was the use of spaces (which are otherwise used as separator) in the
> license name.
>
>>
>>
>>> > I'm not quite sure what is the dep5 way to deal with this. Most
>>> > likely the exception should be moved into the license paragraph and
>>> > the qualificators to the name (with X exception) removed.
>>
>> Yes, treating a license that contains an exception as a combined unique
>> license is also allowed by DEP-5, but is less usable, as the underlying
>> general license is then not machine-readable.
>>
>>
>>> it seems that all those problems only come from the autotools
>>> generated stuff, which is something where i have the feeling that it
>>> should not create problems at all.
>>
>> I don't see no problems.
>>
>> Perhaps the "problem" you are talking about is the one of being
>> cumbersome to properly document all these varying licenses for the code
>> that be use?
>
> The problem is spending too much time doing things that give little
> gain. Plus, they also make the document less useful by adding unneeded
> noise. The files are autogenerated, and they don't either end up or
> "pollute" the binaries. This means they are of little use in the
> copyright file (which is meant to document binary packages copyright).
>
>>
>> You are free to not use the code if you find that the burden of playing
>> along with the rules of the game (which includes documenting licensing!)
>> is higher than the benefit of using it.
>
> Documenting licensing is not part of the rules of the game. The
> copyright file is a necessity because the original documentation
> (contained in the source package) is not shipped in the binary files,
> so we condense that into a single file shipped in every package. There
> is no point in documenting stuff that does not end up in the binary
> packages.
>
>>
>>
>>> i'm therefore wondering, what is the best way to deal with autotools
>>> generated files in general.
>>
>> You can (with your Debian hat on, I am not talking about upstream here)
>> repackage the source to *not* include the autogenerated files as part of
>> Debian distributed sources.  IF the files truly are only autogenerated
>> at the target build host you need not document it - but all that we ship
>> in sources should be documented, whether or not it is used for the
>> production of binary packages!
>
> I disagree with the above. If something does not end up in the
> binaries, it doesn't need to be documented in the copyright file.
>
>>
>>
>>> so i asked at #debian-mentors (see end of this mail), with the
>>> conclusion (as i read it), that it might probably be best to leave out
>>> generated files from debian/copyright alltogether.
>>
>> I read that not as being "best" but being "tolerated".  The big unspoken
>> truth is that Debian has a long way to go to properly document all
>> licensing - and autotools is not the best place to start, as it is much
>> work with little gain (covers little if any new licensing or authors).
>>
>>
>>> would this be acceptable? for you? what do other think?
>>
>> Acceptable, yes.  But ripping out proper documentation as you just did
>> now is completely backwards IMO!
>
> It is unnecessary noise when trying to determine the licensing of
> things in the binaries we ship, which is why I said it should be
> removed.

Felipe,

Thank you very much for stating your opinion such clearly. I fully
concur with your view on DEP-5!

Cheers,
Reinhard

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4