[Python-modules-team] Bug#585999: Review of the copyright file for okasha_0.1.0-1.dsc.

[Charles Plessy]

Hi again,

sorry for not realising that you were alredy doing the right thing with
jquery.min.js; I made too hasty conclusion from the absence of patch
in the source package…

Here are answers to your other questions.


Le Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 06:25:28PM +0300, أحمد المحمودي a écrit :
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:03:36AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 
> > 1)  files/okasha-docbook.css is not documented in your copyright file
> >     (Copyright 2003 Tammy Fox, Garrett LeSage, and Red Hat, Inc.
> >      Copyright 2005 Tommy Reynolds <Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com>
> >      License: GPL )
> 
>   Thanks for spotting that. I wonder though, how you spotted it, 
>   licensecheck only checked the python source files.

I often use ‘grep -ri copyright .’ and pipe the result in a couple of ‘grep -v’
commands if there is a frequent motif that I would like to remove from the
output after I made sure that it corresponds to already documented files.


> > 2a) files/jquery.min.js is not the “preferrable form for modification”.
> >     However, since your package is non-free, this is not a blocking problem.
> 
>   I don't understand this part.

In order to save some bandwith, the size of this javascript file is reduced by
removing whitespace and comments, and shortening variable names. This results
in a file that is not the “preferrable form for modification”, since new
versions are made by working on the original large size version, and reducing
it again. It is a similar situation as having a source file and a binary file,
and therefore in Debian (not non-free), in my understanding, it is not allowed
to keep such a file in the source package if its source is not in as well.

 
> > In addition, I see that you chose the GPLv3+ for your packaging work; I do
> > not recommend it, since it is not compatible with “Waqf”: It may cause headaches
> > if you would like to forward patches or files (manpages, …), that would be
> > GPLv3+ unless stated otherwise.
> 
>   Yes, this issue was raised by Jakub Wilk (who sponsored the package), 
>   and since I do not have any patches, I don't see a problem. Anyways, 
>   in case there are patches, I think I can put them under Waqf. (or 
>   GPL3+ or Waqf ?)

In that case, my personal choice is to provide the packaging work under terms
that allow relicensing (like the BOLA license for instance). But “GPLv3+ or
Waqf” is also a good solution.


> > 1)  files/okasha-docbook.css is not documented in your copyright file
> >     (Copyright 2003 Tammy Fox, Garrett LeSage, and Red Hat, Inc.
> >      Copyright 2005 Tommy Reynolds <Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com>
> >      License: GPL )
> ---end quoted text---
> 
>   GPL = GPL-1 or what ?

Although the authors probably intended GPLv2 or superior, we can not
tell for them. Therefore I would pick GPLv1+ (“any version of the GPL”).
Fortunately, the full-text copy of this license is making its way in
/usr/share/common-licenses.


Have a nice Sunday,

-- 
Charles