Debian Bug report logs - #779676
dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique check is too strict or too severe.

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique check is too strict or too severe.

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:13:12 +0900

Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.30+deb8u3
Severity: normal

Dear Lintian maintainers,

thank you for your support of the machine-readable copyright format.

Regarding the tag dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique, I think that it
is either too strict or too severe.

The specification does not require the use of stand-alone License paragraphs
when the same license short name is used in multiple Files paragraphs.  Hence
it is only an error if two Files paragraphs use the same short name for a
License, but with a different description.

I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:

 - reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
 - only be issued when the same short name is used with a different description.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Message #10 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>, 779676@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#779676: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique check is too strict or too severe.

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:19:38 +0100

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.30+deb8u3
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Lintian maintainers,
>
> thank you for your support of the machine-readable copyright format.
>
> Regarding the tag dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique, I think that it
> is either too strict or too severe.
>
> The specification does not require the use of stand-alone License paragraphs
> when the same license short name is used in multiple Files paragraphs.  Hence
> it is only an error if two Files paragraphs use the same short name for a
> License, but with a different description.
>
> I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:
>
>  - reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
>  - only be issued when the same short name is used with a different description.

Could you pin point the exact verse of the specification ?

Thanks

> Have a nice day,
>
> --
> Charles Plessy
> Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
>

Message #20 received at 779676@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

To: 779676@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#779676: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique check is too strict or too severe.

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 08:16:12 +0900

> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:
> >
> >  - reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
> >  - only be issued when the same short name is used with a different description.

Le Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:19:38PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES a écrit :
> 
> Could you pin point the exact verse of the specification ?

Hi Bastien:

"Stand-alone License paragraphs can be used to provide the full license text
for a given license once, instead of repeating it in each Files paragraph that
refers to it."

https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#stand-alone-license-paragraph

Since it is "can" and not "must", Lintian is too severe.

Have a nice week-end,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Message #25 received at 779676@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>

To: 779676@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#779676: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique check is too strict or too severe.

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:26:07 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I found this bugreport while tracking down this lintian complaint.  I'm
not sure the warning is useful.  Just consider the examples inside
DEP5 itself.  As far as I understand, those wouldn't be compliant with
this check -- example 3 and 4 have multiple 'License: GPL-2+' statements
with different text.

For me lintian complained about the two GPL-3+ licensed block
in the 'libidn2-0' package:

https://sources.debian.net/src/libidn2-0/0.10-2/debian/copyright/

I think the approach I'm using in that package is useful: the comments
for the two blocks of GPL-3+ licensed files are different because the
copyrights are different and the origins of the files are different.  I
never read DEP5 saying this isn't permitted.  If I'm mistaken, maybe
this aspect of DEP5 could be clarified.

Maybe it helps to consider this question: What kind of problem was this
check intended to identify?

/Simon

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #30 received at 779676@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca>

To: 779676@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique check is too strict or too severe.

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 17:30:02 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 07:13:12AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:

> I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:
> 
>  - reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
>  - only be issued when the same short name is used with a different description.

Have to agree with Charles.  I got the warning on the attached
copyright file that uses the suggested "GPL-2+" twice and *with the
same description*.

-Steve

[copyright (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #35 received at 779676@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javi Merino <vicho@debian.org>

To: 779676@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique check is too strict or too severe.

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:59:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 17:30:02 -0500 "Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 07:13:12AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > I think that the dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique tag should either:
> > 
> >  - reduce its severity, as just an advice for readability, or
> >  - only be issued when the same short name is used with a different description.
> 
> Have to agree with Charles.  I got the warning on the attached
> copyright file that uses the suggested "GPL-2+" twice and *with the
> same description*.

I fully agree.  This check fails for the examples in [0] so it should
be removed or fixed.  The offending code is in
checks/source-copyright.pm, lines 391-405:

                for (@short_licenses) {
                    $short_licenses_seen{$_} = $i;
                    if (not defined($full_license)) {
                        $required_standalone_licenses{$_} = $i;
                    } else {
                        if(defined($full_licenses_seen{$_})
                            and $_ ne 'public-domain') {
                            tag 'dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique',
                              "license: $_, (paragraph at line $current_line)";
                        } else {
                            $full_licenses_seen{$_} = $current_line;
                            print("license, seen = $_\n");
                        }
                    }
                }

This adds the license to $full_licenses_seen when there is an entry
with a License: and then fails if there is another entry with the same
License.  That's perfectly valid, as the examples show.

[0] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

Cheers,
Javi

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.