I'm getting an incorrect FSF address when I'm building a package.
I checked here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
and built the package with the recommended file. Still get the error.
I checked the address with FSF, and what is in the COPYING file matches: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/
I then checked bugzilla and found: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700095
which as been open since April, 2011.
Am I missing something here? If there is indeed an error that I'm missing I would like to understand it so I can notify upstream to do the right thing. If this is just a rpmlint glitch it really should be addressed - otherwise people tend to start ignoring the errors and warnings.
On 2014-12-23 20:28, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
I'm getting an incorrect FSF address when I'm building a package.
I checked here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
and built the package with the recommended file. Still get the error.
I checked the address with FSF, and what is in the COPYING file matches: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/
I then checked bugzilla and found: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700095
which as been open since April, 2011.
Am I missing something here? If there is indeed an error that I'm missing I would like to understand it so I can notify upstream to do the right thing. If this is just a rpmlint glitch it really should be addressed - otherwise people tend to start ignoring the errors and warnings.
The check is not only applied to COPYING but also to the license text in source files. Have you checked those?
Cheers!
--alec
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com wrote:
The check is not only applied to COPYING but also to the license text in source files. Have you checked those?
Got it. Thanks!
On 23/12/14 21:55, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@gmail.com mailto:leamas.alec@gmail.com> wrote:
The check is not only applied to COPYING but also to the license text in source files. Have you checked those?Got it. Thanks!
You're welcome.
BTW, in many cases I been able to fix these problems by sending patches rather than just complaints upstream. Basically, I think we (i. e. Fedora) are the which are concerned about this, and in that situation we are the ones motivated enough to provide a patch.
For upstream, merging such a patch is simple; it's just about comments and docs.
Cheers!
--alec
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, in many cases I been able to fix these problems by sending patches rather than just complaints upstream. Basically, I think we (i. e. Fedora) are the which are concerned about this, and in that situation we are the ones motivated enough to provide a patch.
For upstream, merging such a patch is simple; it's just about comments and docs.
Thanks, that's a good recommendation. I'll do that!
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 11:28 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Am I missing something here?
What package are you building, and what is the output from rpmlint? That would help. It should point you to a specific file that it has flagged as containing the outdated postal address.
(Be aware that this error has to be fixed in the upstream project, not the Fedora package. As a Fedora packager, you can just ignore the error, but it's good to report it upstream with a patch.)
Upstream had a few files that had the old address. I've noticed the GPLv3 doesn't have an address in it's notice. Is it sufficient to instruct upstream to just remove the address for GPLv2. Not that they're going to move again, but seems to be alot of work for everybody if the address is actually required.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 11:28 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Am I missing something here?
What package are you building, and what is the output from rpmlint? That would help. It should point you to a specific file that it has flagged as containing the outdated postal address.
(Be aware that this error has to be fixed in the upstream project, not the Fedora package. As a Fedora packager, you can just ignore the error, but it's good to report it upstream with a patch.)
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 2014-12-23, 21:06 GMT, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Upstream had a few files that had the old address. I've noticed the GPLv3 doesn't have an address in it's notice. Is it sufficient to instruct upstream to just remove the address for GPLv2. Not that they're going to move again, but seems to be alot of work for everybody if the address is actually required.
Yes, with GPLv3 FSF finally acknowledged the existence of Internet :) and it mentions the copy of the license being available on the Internet.
GPLv2 is from 1991 and we have to admit that the Internet was not widely available or even known most of the time, so the preferred method for obtaining the license was the snail mail.
However, I don't think that the “How to use GNU license for your own software” has any contractual significance whatsoever in using, so I don’t see anything bad in upgrading even the instructions for GPLv2 to the Internet age (of course, you have to fix the name of the program, and decide about "or any later version" clause).
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
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 Foobar. If not, see https://gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt.
Whatever way you decide to resolve the conflict (just fix the address, or use this modified license information), I believe your best bet is to make a patch (and adding it via normal Patch: clause) and send the whole patch upstream for the inclusion in the project.
Best,
Matěj
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Matěj Cepl mcepl@cepl.eu wrote:
However, I don't think that the “How to use GNU license for your own software” has any contractual significance whatsoever in using, so I don’t see anything bad in upgrading even the instructions for GPLv2 to the Internet age (of course, you have to fix the name of the program, and decide about "or any later version" clause).
Thanks... I reviewed the FSF website and thought that they implied that also, but wanted to get some feedback to somewhat validate my assumption. I also went ahead and made the changes and submitted a git pull request; in addition to sending an email explaining why I made the change.
Matěj Cepl wrote:
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with Foobar. If not, see <https://gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt>.
I just use the standard GPLv3+ template for my new GPLv2+ projects (with only the version changed to 2), including the http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ link. It's OK to point to the current version of the GPL for projects using "or (at your option) any later version" licensing, and the links to the old versions can also be found there anyway.
Kevin Kofler
-
Alec Leamas -
Gerald B. Cox -
Kevin Kofler -
Matěj Cepl -
Michael Catanzaro