ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

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'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?

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.


> 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!


> 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!

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+.

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.


> would it be a good idea to add a section about howto handle autotools 
> generated files to the wiki?

Sounds good - unless it is backwards and mandates us to strip 
documentation that is "too correct".



 - 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/20111130/263525eb/attachment.pgp>