phpgroupware-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright, licences, etc. Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] [Fwd: phpgro


From: Dave Hall
Subject: Re: Copyright, licences, etc. Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] [Fwd: phpgroupware_0.9.16.012+dfsg-1_i386.changes REJECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:40:16 +1100

On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 14:18 +0100, Olivier Berger wrote:
> FYI, I have completed my review and the result can be found in the
> *.copyright files available in the patch at :
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/phpgroupware/phpgroupware_0.9.16.012+dfsg-1.diff.gz
> 
> In short, for licenses, phpgwapi = LGPL + bits of GPL
> rest is GPL with bits of LGPL, and sometimes MPL, or BSD may be found
> locally...

Well the MPL code needs to be replaced.  If it is in the API it can be
called by GPL code and the MPL isn't GPL compatible.

Now for the nit picking :)

There is some windows line endings in there, one right near the bottom
caught my eye,

The legal name of the FSF is the "Free Software Foundation, Inc" - I
know we have discussed which is the correct way to refer to them in the
past.

These days we general refer to the applications as modules, as they
aren't really standalone applications.

I don't think here is really any need to bash the state of the manuals
in the description of the manual module.

Side idea - phpGW supports multiple domains on the one install.  Maybe
for debian we could have /etc/phpgroupware/conf.d and the header.inc.php
could just loop that dir to pull out the configs.  Maybe I am on crack -
but it did seem kinda cool to me.  I am happy to provide the
header.inc.php code for it.

While I am still smoking from the pipe, it would be good if we could
find a way of getting the debian translators to provide translations for
phpgw modules too :)

btw I think you and Christian have both done a great job at trying to
get phpgw back into debian - thanks I really appreciate it.

Cheers

Dave

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Le jeudi 13 mars 2008 à 19:15 +0100, Olivier Berger a écrit :
> > Le jeudi 13 mars 2008 à 08:11 -0500, Chris Weiss a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Olivier Berger
> > > >
> > > >  -------- Message transféré --------
> > > >  De: Joerg Jaspert <address@hidden>
> > 
> > > >  rejected:
> > > >
> > > >  ---+++---
> > > >  Most of this package is licensed under the GNU General Public License.
> > > >  Some parts are licensed differently, e.g. under the GNU LGPL, please 
> > > > see
> > > >  the information in the documentation directory of individual modules 
> > > > and the
> > > >  headers of the source packages.
> > > >  +++---+++
> > > >
> > > >  Sorry, that doesnt work. debian/copyright is *the* single place where
> > > >  all the copyright related information has to be placed.
> > > >
> > > >  [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > 
> > > how detailed does this file need to be?
> > 
> > Well I'm not so sure... I suppose it should at minimal mention all
> > different licences and on which parts they apply.
> > 
> > There are guidelines here :
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html#s-copyright
> > and in particular here :
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
> > 
> > I'm currently processing the phpgroupware 0.9.16 code that we want to
> > package through various scripts in order to get an idea of the copyright
> > notices in all headers of the files, and see what's under GPL, LGPL, and
> > others (so far MPL and BSD-likes).
> > 
> > If you're interested, I will send a summary or the full details
> > (including copyright mentions, licences, authors).
> > 
> > That's something which needs manual review, and it's somehow boring, of
> > course ;)
> > 
> > I hope I'm not duplicating on something which would exist elsewhere...
> > maybe you guys had to do it at some point as a requirement of the GNU
> > project ?
> > In particular, how far does the copyright of the FSF extend, as
> > contributors are supposed to be giving up on their own copyright... the
> > problem is only with legacy code that was reused from elsewhere, is it ?
> > 
> > Any ideas on these matters most welcome, of course ;)
> > 
> > Best regards,
-- 
LLLLL
L*LLL
LLLLL
LLLLL DAVE
LLLLL HALL
      CONSULTING

      Open Source
      Business Solutions

      p +61 410 47 42 55
      e address@hidden
      w davehall.com.au
      f +61 3 8610 0029





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]