yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ? - Debian

This is a discussion on yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ? - Debian ; Hi, no, this is not really about the GFDL issue currently discussed, but about using the unmodified GFDL template in debian/copyright. Besides not being able to tell who has the copyright, it makes it also impossible to tell if there ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?

  1. yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?

    Hi,

    no, this is not really about the GFDL issue currently discussed, but about
    using the unmodified GFDL template in debian/copyright. Besides not being
    able to tell who has the copyright, it makes it also impossible to tell if
    there are invariant sections and/or cover texts.

    Lots of packages (including most of kde, but also gcc-x.y-base, gdb, mtools,
    groff-base) are affected.

    Do a

    find /usr/share/doc -name copyright -exec grep -l "YOUR NAME" {} \;

    to find those packages on your system. (This might cause a few false
    positives, figlet for example is not affected

    AIUI, no matter how the outcome of the GFDL GR will be, these are bugs which
    needs to be fixed. So to me it smells like another mass bug filing, probably
    with user tags.

    Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says invariant
    sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been
    used. Yay ?!

    What do you think ?


    regards,
    Holger

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBD043VUHLQNqxYNSARAtv9AJsGzjlRWMDZmEO/T+wgloDjBRIGjQCgqF0p
    /3U7EA4suH4simZ5Rni3akU=
    =Ehqk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?

    On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:58:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
    > Holger Levsen wrote:
    >
    > > Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says invariant
    > > sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been
    > > used. Yay ?!

    >
    > I suspect that many of those cases might just be an accidental ommission
    > in the copyright file...
    >
    > OTOH, it is hillarious that after typing 'info gdb' I was unable to
    > actually find the statement saying the documentation is under the GFDL;
    > it appears that the FSF has once again mis-applied their own license...


    Incorrect. I clarified this with the GDB documentation expert; for
    some reason the license is in the Info file (you can find it with a
    text editor) but deliberately does not show up in an Info browser.
    Which makes fair sense; normally the license is in the source code,
    not in the binary.

    http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-12/msg00126.html

    --
    Daniel Jacobowitz
    CodeSourcery


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?

    Holger Levsen wrote:

    > Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says invariant
    > sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been
    > used. Yay ?!


    I suspect that many of those cases might just be an accidental ommission
    in the copyright file...

    OTOH, it is hillarious that after typing 'info gdb' I was unable to
    actually find the statement saying the documentation is under the GFDL;
    it appears that the FSF has once again mis-applied their own license...


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?


    > Do a
    >
    > find /usr/share/doc -name copyright -exec grep -l "YOUR NAME" {} \;
    >
    > to find those packages on your system. (This might cause a few false
    > positives, figlet for example is not affected


    Hmm, I suspect this will find a very large number of false positives
    since "YOUR NAME" shows up in the addendum ("how to use this license for
    your documents").

    I looked up a couple of KDE packages (kdeedu, kdebase), which both match
    your grep (due to the addendum) but which both have the full "no invariant
    sections, no front-cover texts, no back-cover texts" blurb appearing before
    the license itself.

    Ben.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread