Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (205 mails)

< Previous Next >
[opensuse-packaging] Re: in a lib package, where does the copyright info go?
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:55, Paul Elliott <pelliott@...> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 02:37:36 AM you wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:55:57AM +0200, Petr Gajdos wrote:
1) libFOO
2) libFOOX where X comes from the SONAME and contains the
.so.x.x.x 3) libFOO-devel

I am not a lawyer, so only common sense tels me that if any piece of
libFOO (libFOO, libFOOX, libFOO-devel or other) is installed, then
appropriate license must be present (by this subpackage or its
requirement). This is in contradiction with our Shared library
packaging policy though.

/usr/share/doc/packages/<pkgname>/ seems like a fine place for it
and would not collide.

Yes, /usr/share/doc/packages/<sub-pkgname>/ would be ok even for libFOOX
(but not /usr/share/doc/packages/libFOO/ for libFOOX for example).

If I put on an IANAL hat then every subpackage has to contain the
license information. But _at least_ it should be present if any
of the packages are installed. Thus, as usually libFOO-devel requires
libFOOX the license should be present in libFOOX. It should always
be present in libFOOX as that can be installed separately without
any other subpackages.

Thus, the shared library policy should be amended that it's ok
to put _license_ information (but not readme, news, etc.) for
the shared-library package libFOOX into /usr/share/doc/packages/libFOOX/.

I'm going to amend it this way.


This would appear to conflict with debian practice, see Debian Policy Manual
section 8.2

Since the upstream source for a large number of projects was originally
written for debian, and then tweeked by a .spec file author to also work
for suse and the other rpm based distros, this will result in spec file
tweeking, with associated labor and maintainence costs.

One can control the PACKAGE a file is in simply by moving a line from one
package to the other.

But if the name or directory a file is in changes from debian to rpm that
invokes hand tweeking, (In the absence of changes by the upstream author).

Just a moment, people, please.
Aren't the sub-packages under exactly the same license as the master-package?
Isn't it so that without the master package the sub-packages can't be installed
regulary? (without --nodeps etc)

Then only /usr/share/doc/packages/<master-package>/ should exist.
No sense in cluttering a system with useless, senseless sh*t.
any documentation of a package, includnig it's dependend sub-packages
shloud be there, and not in any additional dir under /usr/share/doc/packages/ .
It's waste of space enough as it is, no sense to add to that.

What about /usr/share/doc/licences/<licence-name> and just a file
named LICENSE_IS_<licence-name> with a content of a line
"see /usr/share/doc/licences/<licence-name>" to end that waste of space
on the same file over and over. At least for the most used licenses
(GPL, BSD, Mozilla, Apache) and their acknowlged derivates this would
be sufficent to the license and the law.

Just let a file-deduplation run on the /usr/share/doc/packages/
directory of a normally installed system and look at the output.

For a SSD installation this is not acceptable, even less for more
space restriced systems.

Why not just include a license in everything, even the compiled code
to be more absurd. ATM we are getting there.

Stop it. Now.
Take a step back, regain sanity, wisdom, and forward thinking.
Find a workable, qualified, space conserving solution.


PS: Sorry for the rant, but themata "Licence included in everthing"
becomes absurd.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups