ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On 11-12-01 at 11:26am, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> the reason why i started this discussion is not because i don't care 
> about licensing of those files; but that i think - as felipe has 
> already pointed out - that "properly" documenting those files as is 
> currently suggested only creates noise.
> 
> my reasoning is, that those generated (but copyrighted) files, are 
> virtually the same for all packages that use autotools.
> assuming that about 40% of all the C/C++ based debian packages use 
> autotools (that is just a wild guess based on nothing but intuition) 
> this would eventually suggest that we add the very same information to 
> about 4000 packages or so (naively interpolating from debtags)

If code is duplicated 4000 times, then licensing of code needs to be 
stated 4000 times.


> i thought that it might be helpful, if we shorten that information to 
> something like
> <snip>
> Files: libtool, config.sub, config.guess,...
> License: autotools
>   see /usr/share/doc/licenses/autotools
> </snip>
> 
> i'm aware that it might not be that simple, as i haven't followed the 
> evaluation of the various licenses applied to autotools generated 
> files.

Feel free to file a bug report against base-files.

I doubt it will be accepted, because it is not a single license but a 
range of different licenses carefully applied to various of the 
autogenerated files.


> > If you are lazy and want least possible documentation of autotools, 
> > then add a single Files section something like this:
> > 
> > Files: configure*
> >  Makefile*
> >  *m4*
> >  config*
> >  libtool*
> > Copyright: 1992-2008, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > License: GPL-2+
> > 
> > Extend with "missing, depcomp, etc" and don't give a shit about 
> > exceptions or more liberal licensing - just treat it all as being 
> > contaminated with GPL-2+.
> 
> which is a similar suggestion as mine above.
> however, i'm not so convinced about the "contaminated with GPL-2+" 
> argument.

Treating them all as GPL-2+ is the very essence of the proposal: Avoids 
changing base-files.



> > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those 
> > developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool 
> > that is clearly good enough that you use it.
> 
> hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of 
> those great tools. even if i was "lazy and [...] treat it all as [...] 
> GPL-2+" there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges the work.

Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another.


> and with my debian hat on, it was not my decision to use those tools; 
> i only respect upstreams intention.

You have the option of repackaging the source with those autogenerated 
files removed.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20111202/41c17f8b/attachment.pgp>