Discussion:
Bug#897046: RFS: link-grammar/5.4.4-1 [QA upload]
(too old to reply)
Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-04-27 23:34:37 UTC
Permalink
[ Adding debian-legal to the Cc list. ]
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for a QA upload of the link-grammar
package.
[...]
https://mentors.debian.net/package/link-grammar
So, here's the other thing I noticed. d/copyright doesn't seem to be
up-to-date. Also, I don't see any mention about the "debian/" directory
on d/copyright, which might be a problem. I understand the package is
already at this state, but I think it may be a good idea to fix it.

First, I'd recommend re-checking d/copyright and making sure new
copyrights are properly listed. I've found a few notices mentioning
2017/2018, so it's a good idea to list them. I understand this is a
very boring task, but it's something we take seriously at Debian.

As for the "debian/" directory, I *think* it should be enough to list
everybody who has ever touched the debian/ directory. I used the
following one-liner to get a formatted list:

$ git log --date="format:%Y" --format="Copyright %ad %an <%ae>" debian/ | sort -u
Copyright 2009 Ken Bloom <***@gmail.com>
Copyright 2010 Ken Bloom <***@gmail.com>
Copyright 2011 Ken Bloom <***@gmail.com>
Copyright 2015 Wookey <***@wookware.org>
Copyright 2016 Gianfranco Costamagna <***@yahoo.it>
Copyright 2016 Gianfranco Costamagna <***@debian.org>
Copyright 2016 Jeremy Bicha <***@linux.com>
Copyright 2016 Jeremy Bicha <***@ubuntu.com>
Copyright 2017 Adrian Bunk <***@debian.org>
Copyright 2017 Jeremy Bicha <***@ubuntu.com>
Copyright 2017 Steve Langasek <***@ubuntu.com>
Copyright 2018 Fabian Wolff <***@arcor.de>

After massaging a bit:

Copyright 2009-2011 Ken Bloom <***@gmail.com>
Copyright 2015 Wookey <***@wookware.org>
Copyright 2016 Gianfranco Costamagna <***@debian.org>
Copyright 2016-2017 Jeremy Bicha <***@ubuntu.com>
Copyright 2017 Adrian Bunk <***@debian.org>
Copyright 2017 Steve Langasek <***@ubuntu.com>
Copyright 2018 Fabian Wolff <***@arcor.de>

So I think it should be enough to put these lines there. As for the
licence... Well, I'd choose the same licence as the package, although
if we are to be pedantic here, the right thing would be to get in touch
with everyone above and getting their confirmation. I don't know...

Anyway, I am copying debian-legal here, hoping that someone more
knowledgeable can shed some light.

Thanks,
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/
Steve Langasek
2018-04-30 10:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio Durigan Junior
[ Adding debian-legal to the Cc list. ]
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for a QA upload of the link-grammar
package.
[...]
https://mentors.debian.net/package/link-grammar
So, here's the other thing I noticed. d/copyright doesn't seem to be
up-to-date. Also, I don't see any mention about the "debian/" directory
on d/copyright, which might be a problem. I understand the package is
already at this state, but I think it may be a good idea to fix it.
First, I'd recommend re-checking d/copyright and making sure new
copyrights are properly listed. I've found a few notices mentioning
2017/2018, so it's a good idea to list them. I understand this is a
very boring task, but it's something we take seriously at Debian.
As for the "debian/" directory, I *think* it should be enough to list
everybody who has ever touched the debian/ directory. I used the
$ git log --date="format:%Y" --format="Copyright %ad %an <%ae>" debian/ | sort -u
So I think it should be enough to put these lines there. As for the
licence... Well, I'd choose the same licence as the package, although
if we are to be pedantic here, the right thing would be to get in touch
with everyone above and getting their confirmation. I don't know...
Anyway, I am copying debian-legal here, hoping that someone more
knowledgeable can shed some light.
I happened to notice my name in this list, which exposes a flaw in this
methodology. My sole mention in the changelog of this package is:

* Apply patch from Steve Langasek adding the missing test
dependency on default-jdk. (Closes: #865902)

First, the full diff is
'https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=865902;filename=link-grammar_5.3.16-1ubuntu1.debdiff;msg=5'.
This is "obviously" not copyrighted by me under US copyright law; it is a
single line change, which was copy-pasted from debian/control and is purely
functional with no creativity (the only possible "creativity" is the
ordering of the test dependencies and this is uninteresting).

Second, in the case that a change *is* copyrightable, it is not reasonable
to assume that the person submitting a given patch is the copyright holder.
In the general case, patches that I submit to the Debian BTS from my
@canonical.com address would be copyright my employer, not me personally.

I don't think you should be taking it upon yourself to add copyright
statements regarding debian/ contents where authors have not asserted their
copyright up front. There is precious little in debian/, outside of
debian/patches/, which should generally be considered copyrightable in a
well-done package.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
***@ubuntu.com ***@debian.org
Fabian Wolff
2018-04-30 12:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Langasek
I don't think you should be taking it upon yourself to add copyright
statements regarding debian/ contents where authors have not asserted their
copyright up front. There is precious little in debian/, outside of
debian/patches/, which should generally be considered copyrightable in a
well-done package.
I see. Then how about updating debian/copyright simply like so:

"""
diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright
index f72a2e5..9e71f1f 100644
--- a/debian/copyright
+++ b/debian/copyright
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ Copyright: 2003-2004 Daniel Sleator
2007 Mike Ross
2008 Filip Maric
2008-2010 Borislav Iordanov
[-2008-2016-]{+2008-2018+} Linas Vepstas
[-2014-2016-]{+2014-2018+} Amir Plivatsky
License: LGPL-2.1

Files: bindings/java/org/linkgrammar/JSONReader.java
"""

This seems to match the activity in the upstream repository:

https://github.com/opencog/link-grammar/graphs/contributors
Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-04-30 17:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian Wolff
Post by Steve Langasek
I don't think you should be taking it upon yourself to add copyright
statements regarding debian/ contents where authors have not asserted their
copyright up front. There is precious little in debian/, outside of
debian/patches/, which should generally be considered copyrightable in a
well-done package.
"""
diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright
index f72a2e5..9e71f1f 100644
--- a/debian/copyright
+++ b/debian/copyright
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ Copyright: 2003-2004 Daniel Sleator
2007 Mike Ross
2008 Filip Maric
2008-2010 Borislav Iordanov
[-2008-2016-]{+2008-2018+} Linas Vepstas
[-2014-2016-]{+2014-2018+} Amir Plivatsky
License: LGPL-2.1
Files: bindings/java/org/linkgrammar/JSONReader.java
"""
https://github.com/opencog/link-grammar/graphs/contributors
Thank to everybody who replied. Really appreciated.

Fabian, I think it's OK if you just update the upstream project's
copyright info, so I agree with the proposed modification you suggested
above.

Please let me know when you push it, and I'll upload the package.

Thanks,
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/
Ian Jackson
2018-04-30 12:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Langasek
I don't think you should be taking it upon yourself to add copyright
statements regarding debian/ contents where authors have not asserted their
copyright up front. There is precious little in debian/, outside of
debian/patches/, which should generally be considered copyrightable in a
well-done package.
I agree.

But also I would like to suggest that people editing debian/ should
explicitly add a CC0 dedication (or similar) somewhere.

The licence of debian/ needs to be comptatible with the licence of
the rest of the package, and it is often useful to copy fragments from
one debian/ to another.

Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Ian Jackson
2018-04-30 12:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
But also I would like to suggest that people editing debian/ should
explicitly add a CC0 dedication (or similar) somewhere.
This was ambiguous. I mean that the person editing debian/ should
dedicate *their own* changes via a CC0 statement.

I agree that one should not add new copyright notices relating to
other people's contributions.

It is OK to *copy* existing copyright notices from elsewhere in the
pacagke to debina/copyright, since that is what debian/copyright is
for.

Ian.
Loading...