Forum: Too Lazy BBS

Who's Online
Recent Visitors
- Rixter
  Tue Mar 11 08:58:59 2025
  from Madison, Nc via SSH
- Guest
  Sat Mar 8 12:21:38 2025
  from A via SSH
- Amr
  Thu Mar 6 03:38:18 2025
  from Fayetteville, Nc via Telnet
- Amr
  Thu Mar 6 03:36:28 2025
  from Fayetteville, Nc via Telnet

System Info

Sysop:	Amessyroom
Location:	Fayetteville, NC
Users:	35
Nodes:	6 (1 / 5)
Uptime:	19:17:24
Calls:	321
Calls today:	1
Files:	957
Messages:	82,386

Re: Bug#1094030: RFS: freebasic/1.10.1+ds-1 [ITP] -- Compiler for the F

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to Ahmad Khalifa on Wed Feb 5 17:04:27 2025

Copy: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org (Debian Mentors)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart11750835.F0gNSz5aLb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Ahmad,

You have sure picked a difficult project to package from a copyright perspective. My hat is
off to you.

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 3:48:42 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:

you run out of time:

Files: inc/sqlite*.bi

bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain

The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
.

May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

There are several of these where the original is public-domain. Debian Copyright standard says that public-domain needs a License paragraph,
but for some reason it looks wrong to me. Reading your 3rd comment, now
I'm not sure I should leave public-domain in there.

Because different parts of the world have different laws relating to the public domain, it is
important that you maintain the public domain information as accurate as possible in
debian/copyright. As you have more than one public domain license in this package, I
would do it like this:

Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain~sqlite

License: GPL-2+
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this package. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Comment:
On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General
Public License version 2 can be found in “/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2”.

License: public-domain~sqlite
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
.
May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

Files: inc/gmp.bi

bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team

1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+

And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR B, so now
it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.

I recently did something like this:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/copyright? ref_type=heads#L68

Files: inc/X11/*

bootstrap/inc/X11/*

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team

1987-1998 The Open Group

[...]

2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.

License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11

Here is an example where I got tired and called it in. No way anyone
wants to separate X11 headers for individual use, so I lumped them all
up under one impossible set of licenses. I also avoided several
variations of HPND where the variation is the copyright holder name only
and used the generic "copyright holder" language from SPDX.org.

Files: inc/X11/*
bootstrap/inc/X11/*
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
1987-1998 The Open Group
1987-1997 Digital Equipment Corporation
1987 Apollo Computer Inc.
1989-1995 GROUPE BULL
1989-2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
1990-2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates
1993-1994 NCR Corporation
--nextPart11750835.F0gNSz5aLb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>Ahmad,
 You have sure picked a difficult project to package from a copyright perspective. My hat is off to you.
 
On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 3:48:42 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> you run out of time:
> > Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
> > 
> > bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > License: GPL-2+ and public-domain
> > 
> > The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
> > a legal notice, here is a blessing:
> > .
> > 
> > May you do good and not evil.
> > May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
> > May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
> > There are several of these where the original is public-domain. Debian
> Copyright standard says that public-domain needs a License paragraph,
> but for some reason it looks wrong to me. Reading your 3rd comment, now
> I'm not sure I should leave public-domain in there.
 Because different parts of the world have different laws relating to the public domain, it is important that you maintain the public domain information as accurate as possible in
debian/copyright. As you have more than one public domain license in this package, I would do it like this:
 Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
 bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain~sqlite
 License: GPL-2+
 This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 (at your option) any later version.
 . This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 GNU General Public License for more details.
 . You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 along with this package. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Comment:
 On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General
 Public License version 2 can be found in “/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2”.
 License: public-domain~sqlite
 The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
 a legal notice, here is a blessing:
 . May you do good and not evil.
 May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
 May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
 
> > Files: inc/gmp.bi
> > 
> > bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> > 1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+
> > And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR B, so now
> it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.
 I recently did something like this:
 
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads#L68
 > > Files: inc/X11/*
> > 
> > bootstrap/inc/X11/*
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> > 1987-1998 The Open Group
> > [...]
> > > 2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
> > Here is an example where I got tired and called it in. No way anyone
> wants to separate X11 headers for individual use, so I lumped them all
> up under one impossible set of licenses. I also avoided several
> variations of HPND where the variation is the copyright holder name only
> and used the generic "copyright holder" language from SPDX.org.
 Files: inc/X11/*
 bootstrap/inc/X11/*
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
 1987-1998 The Open Group
 1987-1997 Digital Equipment Corporation
 1987 Apollo Computer Inc.
 1989-1995 GROUPE BULL
 1989-2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
 1990-2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates
 1993-1994 NCR Corporation
 1995 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
 1995 Jon Tombs
 1995 Network Computing Devices
 1995 XFree86 Inc.
 1997 Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc
 1999 Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@clark.net>
 2000-2003 Keith Packard
 2000 Compaq Computer Corporation
 2000 SuSE, Inc.
 2003-2008 Jamey Sharp, Josh Triplett
 2004 The Unichrome Project
 2006 Intel Corporation
 2007-2008 Peter Hutterer
 2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
 This section says that “all of the files in these directories are licensed under GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11 and if you want to use any of these
files you need to comply with all of these licenses. Each one of these files is copyright by one or more of the copyright entries. If, for some reason, you want to relicense all of these files under a different license, you need need permission to
from all of these copyright holders. However, if you only want to relicense one of these files, you will need to check the file header to see who ownes the copyright to ask their permission.”
 This would be fine if that accurately described the licensing of the files in that directory, but it doesn’t. Rather, each of the files is licensed under only a subset of
those licenses.
 To handle this correctly, you need to group the files by the licenses they use. Which is insanely time consuming. It took me three days (on and off) to do this debian/
copyright:
 https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads
 
lrc might help automate the process a bit (I see below you use it, but I include it here in case some other reader of the conversation is curious).
 https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/licenserecon
 
> > Files: inc/win/ddk/mmddk.bi
> > 
> > bootstrap/inc/win/ddk/mmddk.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: 2015 The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> > Microsoft Corp.
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+
> > This is an old Microsoft driver header file. I'm keeping it for future
> support of cross-compiling. Would be nice to compile a Win driver in
> freebasic on Linux. Looks a bit wrong saying GPL and Microsoft in the
> same stanza.
 
I’m pretty sure that some future version of Windows is just going to be a custom theme running on top of Linux. ;)
 (I’m not even joking.)
 
> > Files: inc/sndfile.bi
> > 
> > bootstrap/inc/sndfile.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> > 1999-2011 Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd@mega-nerd.com>
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+
> > This is where I genuinely have no idea if GPL and LGPL are compatible.
> Probably should leave these separate
 
I present to you the GPL compatibility matrix:
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
 In this case, if you combine LGPL-2.1+ code with GPL-2+ code you get a combination of GPL-2+.
 I would handle it like this.
 Files: inc/sndfile.bi
 bootstrap/inc/sndfile.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
 1999-2011 Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd@mega-nerd.com>
License: GPL-2+
Comment:
 The original work in the C language was licensed under the LGPL-2.1+.
 Modification by the FreeBASIC Development Team are under the GPL-2+.
 The combined work is thus GPL-2+.
 . <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility>
 
> > Files: inc/libintl.bi
> > 
> > bootstrap/inc/libintl.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: 2011-2012 Thomas.Freiherr@gmx.net
> > 
> > 1995-2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > 
> > License: LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+
> > This is easier, but still LGPL-2 and LGPL-2.1 didn't even have the same
> name back then ("Library" vs. "Lesser").
 Wow! Somehow I didn’t even know about the name change.
 According to GNU, it qualifies as the successor, meaning that LGPL-2+ can be relicensed under the LGPL-2.1+.
 "This GNU Lesser General Public License counts as the successor of the GNU Library General Public License.”
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html
 > Tons more variations of GPL-2+ AND (Zlib, SGI, ZPL, Expat, Curl, etc...)
> where I definitely have no clue if they're compatible, but I don't want
> to spam you too much.
> lrc does a good job of showing the variations as the inc/ dir all comes
> up as false-positives (but even lrc doesn't recognise all licenses)
 My experience is that upstream is often not very careful about GPL compatibility. See, for example:
 https://github.com/feather-wallet/feather/issues/218
 In this regard, I find the following website a nice place to start:
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
 For example, it depends on which version of the ZPL is being used if it is compatible with the GPL.
 
-- Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org 
</body>
</html>
--nextPart11750835.F0gNSz5aLb--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmej/IsACgkQwufLJ66w tgMhQQ/+PBm8I4cLGGPe+VnpJBuSSbp15ccuK7ZOCQ0MXByp3CTAS6au+MlYXtEu nqrGgE9l0OdJNwzSKjC1CpdQFuTqMhWz98vwkkTKHVIB2AYQhyBrLuZ2DZqow3Cn WQf40Nf2pk6ANurD8V+GF+cdUv8LxrgxdWEQimnQ5xiomkz5PWYdzjfw9pLn0kcO uK6oP3tKqKmhFuq9z8+h2wv3FWxAAWz+s1cDCAZ2cbQ+r08V0cQTANOcRrRz4PDb e7l8Xm1013VMS+j/SMUvPssWnhh8h+XsMQeoPR9g4lBlI6A238h3o6EAiult6EEL mfrpNLQHl0cvhAAOEvlcYVJH7eai5EX4WH9zb/aw/XWltn+/BthtvmOiJ0EiXTkt Ijwf5WL+8+OHHpdmC9UHHRdYay8hvS9Wr4mMToQ2DtMIXeJBBg0IC8DcjNEFMk/s VAtLKdFgjrXm4Bbr8CY/u+Rm5SFAFepmsOUHjbt+jmR4VoKlt+1FGfvDeJnbtEyk 6JBpZ2zCDQzFAIpzf83GzRhFZMxHauDmvibkZvrxzzZ2lU7FNOUHJdeaVnu9NwLA pfvY9LvkvPddMxyLYlftl6uXnHqJO68wobpXxT13JTcbE5f1aViFzEkSgOoUdkTN cjIzlA6avMrFHgmVd0FPik++cmJoUDeDr6E0G1vU59v83dfRHfw=
=i9Yg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to Ahmad Khalifa on Wed Feb 5 17:01:08 2025

Copy: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org (Debian Mentors)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart10604624.qUNvkh4Gvn
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Ahmad,

You have sure picked a difficult project to package from a copyright perspective. My hat is
off to you.

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 3:48:42 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:

you run out of time:

Files: inc/sqlite*.bi

bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain

The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
.

May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

There are several of these where the original is public-domain. Debian Copyright standard says that public-domain needs a License paragraph,
but for some reason it looks wrong to me. Reading your 3rd comment, now
I'm not sure I should leave public-domain in there.

Because different parts of the world have different laws relating to the public domain, it is
important that you maintain the public domain information as accurate as possible in
debian/copyright. As you have more than one public domain license in this package, I
would do it like this:

Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain~sqlite

License: GPL-2+
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this package. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Comment:
On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General
Public License version 2 can be found in “/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2”.

License: public-domain~sqlite
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
.
May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

Files: inc/gmp.bi

bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team

1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+

And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR B, so now
it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.

I recently did something like this:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/copyright? ref_type=heads#L68

Files: inc/X11/*

bootstrap/inc/X11/*

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team

1987-1998 The Open Group

[...]

2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.

License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11

Here is an example where I got tired and called it in. No way anyone
wants to separate X11 headers for individual use, so I lumped them all
up under one impossible set of licenses. I also avoided several
variations of HPND where the variation is the copyright holder name only
and used the generic "copyright holder" language from SPDX.org.

Files: inc/X11/*
bootstrap/inc/X11/*
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
1987-1998 The Open Group
1987-1997 Digital Equipment Corporation
1987 Apollo Computer Inc.
1989-1995 GROUPE BULL
1989-2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
1990-2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates
1993-1994 NCR Corporation
1995 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
1995 Jon Tombs
--nextPart10604624.qUNvkh4Gvn
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>Ahmad,
 You have sure picked a difficult project to package from a copyright perspective.  My hat is off to you.
 On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 3:48:42 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> you run out of time:
> > Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
> > 
> >  bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > License: GPL-2+ and public-domain
> > 
> >  The author disclaims copyright to this source code.  In place of
> >  a legal notice, here is a blessing:
> >  .
> >  
> >     May you do good and not evil.
> >     May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
> >     May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
> > There are several of these where the original is public-domain. Debian
> Copyright standard says that public-domain needs a License paragraph,
> but for some reason it looks wrong to me. Reading your 3rd comment, now
> I'm not sure I should leave public-domain in there.
 Because different parts of the world have different laws relating to the public domain, it is important that you maintain the public domain information as accurate as possible in
debian/copyright.  As you have more than one public domain license in this package, I would do it like this:
 Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
       bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain~sqlite
 License: GPL-2+
 This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 (at your option) any later version.
 .
 This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 GNU General Public License for more details.
 .
 You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 along with this package. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Comment:
 On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General
 Public License version 2 can be found in “/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2”.
 License: public-domain~sqlite
 The author disclaims copyright to this source code.  In place of
 a legal notice, here is a blessing:
 .
    May you do good and not evil.
    May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
    May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
 
> > Files: inc/gmp.bi
> > 
> >  bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> >            1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+
> > And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR B, so now
> it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.
 I recently did something like this:
 https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads#L68
 > > Files: inc/X11/*
> > 
> >  bootstrap/inc/X11/*
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> >            1987-1998 The Open Group
> > [...]
> > >            2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
> > Here is an example where I got tired and called it in. No way anyone
> wants to separate X11 headers for individual use, so I lumped them all
> up under one impossible set of licenses. I also avoided several
> variations of HPND where the variation is the copyright holder name only
> and used the generic "copyright holder" language from SPDX.org.
 Files: inc/X11/*
       bootstrap/inc/X11/*
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
           1987-1998 The Open Group
           1987-1997 Digital Equipment Corporation
           1987 Apollo Computer Inc.
           1989-1995 GROUPE BULL
           1989-2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
           1990-2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates
           1993-1994 NCR Corporation
           1995 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
           1995 Jon Tombs
           1995 Network Computing Devices
           1995 XFree86 Inc.
           1997 Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc
           1999 Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@clark.net>
           2000-2003 Keith Packard
           2000 Compaq Computer Corporation
           2000 SuSE, Inc.
           2003-2008 Jamey Sharp, Josh Triplett
           2004 The Unichrome Project
           2006 Intel Corporation
           2007-2008 Peter Hutterer
           2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
 This section says that “all of the files in these directories are licensed under GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11 and if you want to use any of these
files you need to comply with all of these licenses.  Each one of these files is copyright by one or more of the copyright entries.  If, for some reason, you want to relicense all of these files under a different license, you need need
permission to from all of these copyright holders.  However, if you only want to relicense one of these files, you will need to check the file header to see who ownes the copyright to ask their permission.”
 This would be fine if that accurately described the licensing of the files in that directory, but it doesn’t.  Rather, each of the files is licensed under only a subset of
those licenses.
 To handle this correctly, you need to group the files by the licenses they use.  Which is insanely time consuming.  It took me three days (on and off) to do this debian/
copyright:
 https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads
 lrc might help automate the process a bit (I see below you use it, but I include it here in case some other reader of the conversation is curious).
 https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/licenserecon
 > > Files: inc/win/ddk/mmddk.bi
> > 
> >  bootstrap/inc/win/ddk/mmddk.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: 2015 The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> >            Microsoft Corp.
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+
> > This is an old Microsoft driver header file. I'm keeping it for future
> support of cross-compiling. Would be nice to compile a Win driver in
> freebasic on Linux. Looks a bit wrong saying GPL and Microsoft in the
> same stanza.
 I’m pretty sure that some future version of Windows is just going to be a custom theme running on top of Linux.  ;)
 (I’m not even joking.)
 > > Files: inc/sndfile.bi
> > 
> >  bootstrap/inc/sndfile.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 
> >            1999-2011 Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd@mega-nerd.com>
> > 
> > License: GPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+
> > This is where I genuinely have no idea if GPL and LGPL are compatible.
> Probably should leave these separate
 I present to you the GPL compatibility matrix:
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
 In this case, if you combine LGPL-2.1+ code with GPL-2+ code you get a combination of GPL-2+.
 I would handle it like this.
 Files: inc/sndfile.bi
       bootstrap/inc/sndfile.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
           1999-2011 Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd@mega-nerd.com>
License: GPL-2+
Comment:
 The original work in the C language was licensed under the LGPL-2.1+.
 Modification by the FreeBASIC Development Team are under the GPL-2+.
 The combined work is thus GPL-2+.
 . 
 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility>
 > > Files: inc/libintl.bi
> > 
> >  bootstrap/inc/libintl.bi
> > 
> > Copyright: 2011-2012 Thomas.Freiherr@gmx.net
> > 
> >            1995-2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > 
> > License: LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+
> > This is easier, but still LGPL-2 and LGPL-2.1 didn't even have the same
> name back then ("Library" vs. "Lesser").
 Wow!  Somehow I didn’t even know about the name change.
 According to GNU, it qualifies as the successor, meaning that LGPL-2+ can be relicensed under the LGPL-2.1+.
 "This GNU Lesser General Public License counts as the successor of the GNU Library General Public License.”
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html
 > Tons more variations of GPL-2+ AND (Zlib, SGI, ZPL, Expat, Curl, etc...)
> where I definitely have no clue if they're compatible, but I don't want
> to spam you too much.
> lrc does a good job of showing the variations as the inc/ dir all comes
> up as false-positives (but even lrc doesn't recognise all licenses)
 My experience is that upstream is often not very careful about GPL compatibility.  See, for example:
 https://github.com/feather-wallet/feather/issues/218
 In this regard, I find the following website a nice place to start:
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
 For example, it depends on which version of the ZPL is being used if it is compatible with the GPL.
 -- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org
</body>
</html>
--nextPart10604624.qUNvkh4Gvn--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmej+8QACgkQwufLJ66w tgPMFhAAo7R1bheA4cFp5FLhrjGBWiqGA/WUV7SdGAcc0XbAl5SUAzw9OZ/yohJ+ Ma2CUEj9808xyz7wtKR3EbPvD3gxrXfLgpsSkNLFeER14YCf+0zQU+JO96wfJTJm mfQ1bjCCsaw3r4gpwvLYIa3KXIZ+7koDa3uvHU0RTheRNlLtAmr6cpA3I2PfnN6t J2mIwwTgI5Y1xKiIpSgYvnI9wYqoEeTnhHni0Zq1BcQMqW4LDqxyI/2vgiGUfioX U35QDNF3uw9bAF1z1/Z3csd4xirIQoV0lD4vmuIUCQlCXnV7Xs9cO4AggJDPQNkk yRLRsx7eymvaPnKFqhYmg2YDOKQ/wAFJJzpftr8Yq/PgfUxFNkBGcaiIhOWQMLCo Xqj5JvfPIp2k9lEA4WEJkGbh141zkz4OQdO65uWX7vfQQShBk+43f0HTZe1xolS1 jbQ9MnhJXMM0IOEoZ07RL4QpZ7Fyj54UrClQbSqohIpUV4FJKKlgdBG98vNTyeqG XvVqp4TXQt0NfJohNjMaM08bONz8HkrrYMx/GYnR9ZuA0OfmWIW0w/HXbMfZHwXC i/AiOC671B6bryA6gphbGdA6nTvFfG3MG3U2Ag23frPxR7X/1MZqiXknJv9G5Go3 H4W9Z7/o5s6mTyAEcvHbiRmJoBirm6Jtopk8e0SZK1piJGFnpHo=
=8HV+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Ahmad Khalifa@21:1/5 to Soren Stoutner on Thu Feb 6 22:40:02 2025

On 06/02/2025 00:07, Soren Stoutner wrote:

Ahmad,

(KMail hit me with this bug again, so I am resending this from
Thunderbird. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057758)

They all came through complete. Perhaps the bug is in the "Sent" box only.
This is the first one: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2025/02/msg00045.html

You have sure picked a difficult project to package from a copyright perspective. My hat is off to you.

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 3:48:42 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:

Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
.
 May you do good and not evil.
 May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. > May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

There are several of these where the original is public-domain. Debian Copyright standard says that public-domain needs a License paragraph,
but for some reason it looks wrong to me. Reading your 3rd comment, now I'm not sure I should leave public-domain in there.

Because different parts of the world have different laws relating to the public domain, it is important that you maintain the public domain information as accurate as possible in debian/copyright. As you have
more than one public domain license in this package, I would do it like
this:

Files: inc/sqlite*.bi
bootstrap/inc/sqlite*.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
License: GPL-2+ and public-domain~sqlite

License: GPL-2+
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this package. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. Comment:
On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General
Public License version 2 can be found in “/usr/share/common-licenses/ GPL-2”.

License: public-domain~sqlite
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
.
May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

My understanding was that keeping the special short name 'public-domain'
is a special case from section 7.1.1 here: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

I could separate it out as it is usually easier to manage the Files
stanzas when they're slim.

Files: inc/gmp.bi
bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
 1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+

And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR B, so now it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.

I recently did something like this:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/copyright? ref_type=heads#L68

Oh this works and lintian doesn't complain about parenthesis!
Section 7.2 in that copyright format has this obscure comma based
format. More natural language, but slightly ambiguous.

But are you also saying to keep the AND/OR and not squash them down?

Files: inc/X11/*
bootstrap/inc/X11/*
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
 1987-1998 The Open Group

[...]

 2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11

Here is an example where I got tired and called it in. No way anyone
wants to separate X11 headers for individual use, so I lumped them all
up under one impossible set of licenses. I also avoided several
variations of HPND where the variation is the copyright holder name only and used the generic "copyright holder" language from SPDX.org.

Files: inc/X11/*
bootstrap/inc/X11/*
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
1987-1998 The Open Group
1987-1997 Digital Equipment Corporation
1987 Apollo Computer Inc.
1989-1995 GROUPE BULL
1989-2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
1990-2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates
1993-1994 NCR Corporation
1995 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
1995 Jon Tombs
1995 Network Computing Devices
1995 XFree86 Inc.
1997 Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc
1999 Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@clark.net>
2000-2003 Keith Packard
2000 Compaq Computer Corporation
2000 SuSE, Inc.
2003-2008 Jamey Sharp, Josh Triplett
2004 The Unichrome Project
2006 Intel Corporation
2007-2008 Peter Hutterer
2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11

This section says that “all of the files in these directories are
licensed under GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
and if you want to use any of these files you need to comply with all of these licenses. Each one of these files is copyright by one or more of
the copyright entries. If, for some reason, you want to relicense all
of these files under a different license, you need need permission to
from all of these copyright holders. However, if you only want to
relicense one of these files, you will need to check the file header to
see who ownes the copyright to ask their permission.”

This would be fine if that accurately described the licensing of the
files in that directory, but it doesn’t. Rather, each of the files is licensed under only a subset of those licenses.

To handle this correctly, you need to group the files by the licenses
they use. Which is insanely time consuming. It took me three days (on
and off) to do this debian/copyright:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/debian/copyright? ref_type=heads

lrc might help automate the process a bit (I see below you use it, but I include it here in case some other reader of the conversation is curious).

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/licenserecon

If I may debate a little here...
You're quite right in that the accurate picture is to group the files
according to their copyrights and licenses. And even to separate out the
HPND licenses into their verbatim copyright holder versions: HPND-DEC, HPND-Keith, HPND-SGI, HPND-HP, ...

But in practice, what's wrong with adding licenses, even if they're superfluous?
If the goal here is to protect debian from any incorrect usage due to
debian's declaration of copyright on distributed software, isn't it safe
to pile on more licenses? Similar to how we lump up several copyright
holders over multiple files.
It only makes it "inconvenient" to use the files without reading their individual license in the rare case that someone wants to fish out a
single file and lump it with another non-free license.

In other words, isn't it safer to add an extra license to a whole
directory than to forget a license on a single file?

Of course, this is partially motivated by the objective to reduce the maintenance effort here, but can't help wonder why no other distribution
system has this level of granularity and still thrives (fedora, flatpak, ubuntu, ...).

Reading courier's copyright and seeing lots of similar challenges, but
I'm surprised its aclocal.m4 file has a separate license.
My understanding was that you can relicense libtool's generated files to whatever license the main program uses due to this snippet:

# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
# distribute this file as part of a program or library that is built
# using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the same
# distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

Files: inc/win/ddk/mmddk.bi
bootstrap/inc/win/ddk/mmddk.bi
Copyright: 2015 The FreeBASIC Development Team
 Microsoft Corp.
License: GPL-2+

This is an old Microsoft driver header file. I'm keeping it for future support of cross-compiling. Would be nice to compile a Win driver in freebasic on Linux. Looks a bit wrong saying GPL and Microsoft in the
same stanza.

I’m pretty sure that some future version of Windows is just going to be
a custom theme running on top of Linux. ;)

(I’m not even joking.)

Believable, with Edge being a chrome shell and everything being an
Electron app (Teams, VS Code, new Outlook, ...)

Files: inc/sndfile.bi
bootstrap/inc/sndfile.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
 1999-2011 Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd@mega-nerd.com>
License: GPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+

This is where I genuinely have no idea if GPL and LGPL are compatible. Probably should leave these separate

I present to you the GPL compatibility matrix: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

In this case, if you combine LGPL-2.1+ code with GPL-2+ code you get a combination of GPL-2+.

I would handle it like this.

Files: inc/sndfile.bi
bootstrap/inc/sndfile.bi
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
1999-2011 Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd@mega-nerd.com>
License: GPL-2+
Comment:
The original work in the C language was licensed under the LGPL-2.1+.
Modification by the FreeBASIC Development Team are under the GPL-2+.
The combined work is thus GPL-2+.

Thanks for that matrix. Good reminder that GPL-2-only and GPL-3 have issues.
On this file, the GPL-2 is the more strict license, so I get that
LGPL-2.1 can be removed.

.
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility>

Files: inc/libintl.bi
bootstrap/inc/libintl.bi
Copyright: 2011-2012 Thomas.Freiherr@gmx.net
 1995-2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License: LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+

This is easier, but still LGPL-2 and LGPL-2.1 didn't even have the same name back then ("Library" vs. "Lesser").

Wow! Somehow I didn’t even know about the name change.

According to GNU, it qualifies as the successor, meaning that LGPL-2+
can be relicensed under the LGPL-2.1+.

"This GNU Lesser General Public License counts as the successor of the
GNU Library General Public License.”

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html

Nice find. You actually read the license :)

Tons more variations of GPL-2+ AND (Zlib, SGI, ZPL, Expat, Curl, etc...) where I definitely have no clue if they're compatible, but I don't want
to spam you too much.

lrc does a good job of showing the variations as the inc/ dir all comes
up as false-positives (but even lrc doesn't recognise all licenses)

My experience is that upstream is often not very careful about GPL compatibility. See, for example:

https://github.com/feather-wallet/feather/issues/218

In this regard, I find the following website a nice place to start:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

For example, it depends on which version of the ZPL is being used if it
is compatible with the GPL.

Thanks again for the review.

--
Regards,
Ahmad

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to Ahmad Khalifa on Thu Feb 6 15:04:09 2025

Copy: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org (Debian Mentors)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart3883612.07ICAnoMbH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Ahmad,

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 2:33:13 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:

On 06/02/2025 00:07, Soren Stoutner wrote:

Ahmad,

(KMail hit me with this bug again, so I am resending this from
Thunderbird. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057758)

They all came through complete. Perhaps the bug is in the "Sent" box only. This is the first one: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2025/02/msg00045.html

That’s interesting. Perhaps the bug behavior changed a bit with the KDE 6 transition.

My understanding was that keeping the special short name 'public-domain'
is a special case from section 7.1.1 here: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

I could separate it out as it is usually easier to manage the Files
stanzas when they're slim.

That is a preference that you are certainly free to follow. Personally, I find it more difficult
to read a debian/copyright file if the text of the license is sometimes with a file stanza and
sometimes at the bottom. As you have multiple different public domain declarations, if
you put them at the bottom of the file you will need to have different public- domain~versions, as described in 7.1.1.

"When the License field in a stanza has the short name public-domain, the remaining lines
of the field must explain exactly what exemption the corresponding files for that stanza
have from default copyright restrictions."

Files: inc/gmp.bi

bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team

1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+

And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR B, so now it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.

I recently did something like this:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/copyright? ref_type=heads#L68

Oh this works and lintian doesn't complain about parenthesis!
Section 7.2 in that copyright format has this obscure comma based
format. More natural language, but slightly ambiguous.

But are you also saying to keep the AND/OR and not squash them down?

The LGPL-3+ cannot be subsumed into the GPL-2+ without turning it into the GPL-3+. So, I
think the only way to accurately state what happened is:

License: GPL-2+ and (GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+)

This says that the original file was available under the GPL-2+ or the LGPL-3+. The
FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file under the GPL-2+ option, and then
licensed their code translation under the GPL-2+. This means that the current version of
the file is only available under the GPL-2+.

Alternatively, you could do:

License: GPL-2+
Comment:
Free Software Foundation licensed the original file was under the GPL-2+ or
the LGPL-3+. The FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file
under the GPL-2+ option, and then licensed their code translation under the
GPL-2+.

Files: inc/X11/*

bootstrap/inc/X11/*

Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team

1987-1998 The Open Group

[...]

2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.

License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11

Here is an example where I got tired and called it in. No way anyone wants to separate X11 headers for individual use, so I lumped them all up under one impossible set of licenses. I also avoided several variations of HPND where the variation is the copyright holder name only and used the generic "copyright holder" language from SPDX.org.

Files: inc/X11/*
bootstrap/inc/X11/*
Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
1987-1998 The Open Group
1987-1997 Digital Equipment Corporation
1987 Apollo Computer Inc.
1989-1995 GROUPE BULL
1989-2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
1990-2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates
1993-1994 NCR Corporation
1995 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
1995 Jon Tombs
1995 Network Computing Devices
1995 XFree86 Inc.
1997 Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc
1999 Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@clark.net>
2000-2003 Keith Packard
2000 Compaq Computer Corporation

--nextPart3883612.07ICAnoMbH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>Ahmad,
 On Thursday, February 6, 2025 2:33:13 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> On 06/02/2025 00:07, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > Ahmad,
> > 
> > (KMail hit me with this bug again, so I am resending this from
> > Thunderbird. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057758)
> They all came through complete. Perhaps the bug is in the "Sent" box only.
> This is the first one:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2025/02/msg00045.html
 That’s interesting.  Perhaps the bug behavior changed a bit with the KDE 6 transition.
 > My understanding was that keeping the special short name 'public-domain'
> is a special case from section 7.1.1 here:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> > I could separate it out as it is usually easier to manage the Files
> stanzas when they're slim.
 That is a preference that you are certainly free to follow.  Personally, I find it more difficult to read a debian/copyright file if the text of the license is sometimes
with a file stanza and sometimes at the bottom.  As you have multiple different public domain declarations, if you put them at the bottom of the file you will need to have different public-domain~versions, as described in 7.1.1.
 "When the License field in a stanza has the short name public-domain, the remaining lines of the field must explain exactly what exemption the corresponding files for that
stanza have from default copyright restrictions."
 
> >  > > Files: inc/gmp.bi
> >  > >
> >  > > bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi
> >  > >
> >  > > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> >  > >
> >  > > 1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >  > >
> >  > > License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+
> >  > 
> >  > And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR B, so now
> >  > it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.
> > 
> > I recently did something like this:
> > 
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?
> > ref_type=heads#L68
> > Oh this works and lintian doesn't complain about parenthesis!
> Section 7.2 in that copyright format has this obscure comma based
> format. More natural language, but slightly ambiguous.
> > But are you also saying to keep the AND/OR and not squash them down?
 The LGPL-3+ cannot be subsumed into the GPL-2+ without turning it into the GPL-3+.  So, I think the only way to accurately state what happened is:
 License:  GPL-2+ and (GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+)
 This says that the original file was available under the GPL-2+ or the LGPL-3+.  The FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file under the GPL-2+ option, and then
licensed their code translation under the GPL-2+.  This means that the current version of the file is only available under the GPL-2+.
 Alternatively, you could do:
 License:  GPL-2+
Comment:
 Free Software Foundation licensed the original file was under the GPL-2+ or
 the LGPL-3+.  The FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file
 under the GPL-2+ option, and then licensed their code translation under the
 GPL-2+.
 > >  > > Files: inc/X11/*
> >  > >
> >  > > bootstrap/inc/X11/*
> >  > >
> >  > > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> >  > >
> >  > > 1987-1998 The Open Group
> >  > 
> >  > [...]
> >  > 
> >  > > 2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
> >  > >
> >  > > License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
> >  > 
> >  > Here is an example where I got tired and called it in. No way anyone
> >  > wants to separate X11 headers for individual use, so I lumped them all
> >  > up under one impossible set of licenses. I also avoided several
> >  > variations of HPND where the variation is the copyright holder name only
> >  > and used the generic "copyright holder" language from SPDX.org.
> > 
> > Files: inc/X11/*
> > bootstrap/inc/X11/*
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > 1987-1998 The Open Group
> > 1987-1997 Digital Equipment Corporation
> > 1987 Apollo Computer Inc.
> > 1989-1995 GROUPE BULL
> > 1989-2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
> > 1990-2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates
> > 1993-1994 NCR Corporation
> > 1995 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
> > 1995 Jon Tombs
> > 1995 Network Computing Devices
> > 1995 XFree86 Inc.
> > 1997 Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc
> > 1999 Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@clark.net>
> > 2000-2003 Keith Packard
> > 2000 Compaq Computer Corporation
> > 2000 SuSE, Inc.
> > 2003-2008 Jamey Sharp, Josh Triplett
> > 2004 The Unichrome Project
> > 2006 Intel Corporation
> > 2007-2008 Peter Hutterer
> > 2008-2010 Red Hat, Inc.
> > License: GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
> > 
> > This section says that “all of the files in these directories are
> > licensed under GPL-2+ and HPND-sell-variant and MIT and MIT-HP and X11
> > and if you want to use any of these files you need to comply with all of
> > these licenses. Each one of these files is copyright by one or more of
> > the copyright entries. If, for some reason, you want to relicense all
> > of these files under a different license, you need need permission to
> > from all of these copyright holders. However, if you only want to
> > relicense one of these files, you will need to check the file header to
> > see who ownes the copyright to ask their permission.”
> > 
> > This would be fine if that accurately described the licensing of the
> > files in that directory, but it doesn’t. Rather, each of the files is
> > licensed under only a subset of those licenses.
> > 
> > To handle this correctly, you need to group the files by the licenses
> > they use. Which is insanely time consuming. It took me three days (on
> > and off) to do this debian/copyright:
> > 
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?
> > ref_type=heads
> > 
> > lrc might help automate the process a bit (I see below you use it, but I
> > include it here in case some other reader of the conversation is curious).
> > 
> > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/licenserecon
> > If I may debate a little here...
> You're quite right in that the accurate picture is to group the files
> according to their copyrights and licenses. And even to separate out the
> HPND licenses into their verbatim copyright holder versions: HPND-DEC,
> HPND-Keith, HPND-SGI, HPND-HP, ...
> > But in practice, what's wrong with adding licenses, even if they're
> superfluous?
> If the goal here is to protect debian from any incorrect usage due to
> debian's declaration of copyright on distributed software, isn't it safe
> to pile on more licenses? Similar to how we lump up several copyright
> holders over multiple files.
> It only makes it "inconvenient" to use the files without reading their
> individual license in the rare case that someone wants to fish out a
> single file and lump it with another non-free license.
> > In other words, isn't it safer to add an extra license to a whole
> directory than to forget a license on a single file?
> > Of course, this is partially motivated by the objective to reduce the
> maintenance effort here, but can't help wonder why no other distribution
> system has this level of granularity and still thrives (fedora, flatpak,
> ubuntu, ...).
 If that were the case, then each debian/copyright file would just contain one stanza.
 Files: *
Copyright: All the copyright statements in the package.
License:  All the licenses in the package.
 This is counter to the design of DEP-5.  If you feel strongly about this, you are welcome to propose an update to DEP-5, but I think it is accurate to say that Debian’s
current practice is that the license listed under a files stanza should apply equally to each file in that stanza.
 > Reading courier's copyright and seeing lots of similar challenges, but
> I'm surprised its aclocal.m4 file has a separate license.
> My understanding was that you can relicense libtool's generated files to
> > whatever license the main program uses due to this snippet:
> > # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> > # distribute this file as part of a program or library that is built
> > # using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the  same
> > # distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
 I think you are correct, as long as the aclocal.m4 is only licensed under the above text.  However, these aclocal.m4 files contain many other copyright and licensing claims
beyond just the GPL-2+~Libtool-with-exception.  For example, search through the following file for each time the word “copyright” appears.
 https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/aclocal.m4?ref_type=heads
 -- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org
</body>
</html>
--nextPart3883612.07ICAnoMbH--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmelMdkACgkQwufLJ66w tgMwvg/8Cde1YMlsLSH9vYk3M3/y3mRoSI68YMcIaIVKtJy6r28DUJDCMyvJVTgJ 9WZ9Eg9WI9k6ScW+1Vc/n0aV+Ds0s1Wg00V0exeGeVWsdchHuvOwvCLfDAD/ZB4A ex+d0FlDrOuWNCYnl60F7hOQy5kI3arRK3f6ym7tN4aZ22CDGY4UwRUPaCGS6Ipu xG+f8CO88OYiNl9udA6vqvqbRqMw3G5i5iia2V0XSCVsrvAbxeG6xFDvklrDxaAz V0tBl45LFn9z0DHVHuCl2hHjA6Ayu550EhNfH/FMcx3iWM6BL3HROZjiWw5eL4ik DAIO/YL634Zq60fMU2nXW3OTF+6vs+bfl2k57cIL5X7FWurngueL7IrkgnxJPtM3 NEQw5rvgIcTe9OGr9vgcGpB+IhcDtNnDHaQMAyTMqJa8H1nsKxLNQookXGZVTSnl e+4H5kv8pfoo+MZsqJZ24CZxasgtphsaXmFy9FMwiHTRLhQ2UQOxMSDcct+2jGQv 89xIjMPYfnyJWAek2FMsuPikfpNB+Mg1N02WcOSnMA6DWuQyh88MANChwo2/T9lY V/NcgGGPTXfH70EaDUIGMEBfaB08+q+UTbXTyWroVl/J4LfYJvlrlle9NgkqMHUU +t9wvIm7CwGV7Ycwi0vcT0RhS3SZkA4thJZtdwAkp4ez2/gctDY=
=U798
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From Ahmad Khalifa@21:1/5 to Soren Stoutner on Thu Feb 6 23:50:02 2025

Hi Soren,

On 06/02/2025 22:04, Soren Stoutner wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 2:33:13 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:

> > Files: inc/gmp.bi
> >
> > bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi
> >
> > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> >
> > 1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+
>
> And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR

B, so now

> it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.

I recently did something like this:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/

copyright?

ref_type=heads#L68

Oh this works and lintian doesn't complain about parenthesis!
Section 7.2 in that copyright format has this obscure comma based
format. More natural language, but slightly ambiguous.

But are you also saying to keep the AND/OR and not squash them down?

The LGPL-3+ cannot be subsumed into the GPL-2+ without turning it into
the GPL-3+. So, I think the only way to accurately state what happened is:

License: GPL-2+ and (GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+)

This says that the original file was available under the GPL-2+ or the LGPL-3+. The FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file
under the GPL-2+ option, and then licensed their code translation under
the GPL-2+. This means that the current version of the file is only available under the GPL-2+.

Alternatively, you could do:

License: GPL-2+
Comment:
Free Software Foundation licensed the original file was under the
GPL-2+ or
the LGPL-3+. The FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file
under the GPL-2+ option, and then licensed their code translation
under the
GPL-2+.

Understood, no squashing due to the compatibility this time, but in
other cases it's ok. Going to go back to the compatibility matrix for a
bit before making changes.

If I may debate a little here...
You're quite right in that the accurate picture is to group the files according to their copyrights and licenses. And even to separate out the HPND licenses into their verbatim copyright holder versions: HPND-DEC, HPND-Keith, HPND-SGI, HPND-HP, ...

But in practice, what's wrong with adding licenses, even if they're superfluous?
If the goal here is to protect debian from any incorrect usage due to debian's declaration of copyright on distributed software, isn't it safe to pile on more licenses? Similar to how we lump up several copyright holders over multiple files.
It only makes it "inconvenient" to use the files without reading their individual license in the rare case that someone wants to fish out a single file and lump it with another non-free license.

In other words, isn't it safer to add an extra license to a whole directory than to forget a license on a single file?

Of course, this is partially motivated by the objective to reduce the maintenance effort here, but can't help wonder why no other distribution system has this level of granularity and still thrives (fedora, flatpak, ubuntu, ...).

If that were the case, then each debian/copyright file would just
contain one stanza.

Files: *
Copyright: All the copyright statements in the package.
License: All the licenses in the package.

You propose that like it's a bad thing, but I would find it amazing if
it's possible. It's fair to the authors who get recognised similar to an AUTHORS/CONTRIBUTORS file, and it's a nice heads up to anyone who wants
to use the source of what licenses may be involved.
I could have saved 2 weeks fiddling with coreboot's copyright file last
year if this was an accepted option.

This is counter to the design of DEP-5. If you feel strongly about
this, you are welcome to propose an update to DEP-5, but I think it is accurate to say that Debian’s current practice is that the license
listed under a files stanza should apply equally to each file in that
stanza.

I feel strongly about it, but this is beyond my pay grade. (and also
having seen some previous discussions on DEP-5, I know there are other
strong opinions there too)

--
Regards,
Ahmad

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From The Wanderer@21:1/5 to Ahmad Khalifa on Fri Feb 7 04:50:01 2025

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
On 2025-02-06 at 16:33, Ahmad Khalifa wrote:

On 06/02/2025 00:07, Soren Stoutner wrote:

Ahmad,

(KMail hit me with this bug again, so I am resending this from
Thunderbird. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057758)

They all came through complete. Perhaps the bug is in the "Sent" box only. This is the first one: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2025/02/msg00045.html

No - the first two were visible truncated, on my end. (Reading in
plain-text mode. I suspect the Web interface is taking its contents from
the HTML version of the mail; as per the bug Soren cited in a response,
the text version is what is being truncated.)

--
The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmelfsMACgkQBKk1jTQo Mmv3Ag/+Kw3VdhEHgWGUh75GsoLjEcnsYKdzgiAgVCt/lE6DWbMu1FNvavCIso/8 NbpA3oUSwmQet+meLWyY9bElAhHdA7NI5PiaEhnM7yhewZZnOr9CkcPOu2xy8SZa 5kADOrm1mASny2KVSS8u5ayaLAsHawEGOCV4ErCNNrupGZGO5q4DeYq3TkbTO/yH pux1g9MwGmBEl86xCxFkuSgNtMAP2byP1oqLTOc20QB8pOw1ovb0mJjpkZ5XGdM9 LFv99Ed7rsBf3EAYsxnhZv3rW1lyfE0SN/3JcKgyKrLvD4tz8kcoaZuU5pYpytyL LdDaSfIAWsL5yloQcLtBgl7KQlwu4PZZxplNVqR5Xf7/AfbykLmu6NoOe0Rswyi9 zfXltMH7CTMMIVhU0cbKRVfjy663fsNVN6XA091kNw410RWF+xHOj9ZjRpYvkE93 XsoLM5OMPwaO2arXrcGbBecpcSE/0Wg0UBjDEzuLZ7q0Su0YPsZRGmzGXaHDLtf0 eaxySAgx0G5IzQykWdBP7uw2/1m1OW0JoYHirs5+n/aKZE/oPOVOkP4YrokVNnCm YoJEd62vnTLfkKfBv6dYmLjahVM1YSVQLK6wAnoHpexiKnrKHOOrwPeb2zT81lq6 EsNvM95puJNT7y8sfw0vTHk6JNUK

Who's Online

Recent Visitors

System Info

Re: Bug#1094030: RFS: freebasic/1.10.1+ds-1 [ITP] -- Compiler for the F