[devel] платформа для вендоров

[Vital Khilko <vk@altlinux.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7116 bytes --]

On Пят, 2005-10-21 at 09:32 +0400, Anton Farygin wrote:

> В данном конкретном случае - платформа для вендоров.

Вот тут ты вроде прав. Но лично у меня сложилось ощущение что скорее для
местячковых ОЕМщиков. И всё это не на пустом месте - подкреплено
некоторыми неприятностями. Как известно мы в Sam Solutions допиливаем
пакеты из сизифа для ARM и далее  создаём собственные продукты для
забугорных заказчиков, это там, где GPL таки _реально_ работает и где
юристы требуют _строгого_ соблюдения лицензии, и где заказчик хочет быть
уверен что он ничего не нарушает и соблюдает каждую буковку закона. И
вот юрист заказчика задаёт элементарный казалось бы вопрос" а как у нас
с Copyright statement and distributed license per each binary package? а
сырцы? а патчи?" И тут  вдруг оказывается что всё плачевно... только 29
пакетов из порядка 300 что входят в наши дистрибутивы имеют хоть какую
либо информацию об авторском праве и лисензии на пакет, остальные лишь
ограничиваются тэгом в рпм, причём некоторое количество таких тэгов
содержат неверную информацию. И вот теперь в овральном порядке мы
вынуждены собирать всю необходимую информацию по каждому пакету и
пересобирать... а сборка на ARM занимает ой как много времени.  А между
тем тот же дебиан давно обошёл эти грабли и имеет строгое полиси на этот
счёт:

12.5 Copyright information

Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright.
This file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link.

In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if
any) were obtained. It should name the original authors of the package
and the Debian maintainer(s) who were involved with its creation.

A copy of the file which will be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the
source package.

/usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory in
/usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source
and the first package Depends on the second. These rules are important
because copyrights must be extractable by mechanical means.

Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license,
the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL should refer to the files
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic,
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, and /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL
respectively, rather than quoting them in the copyright file.

You should not use the copyright file as a general README file. If your
package has such a file it should be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/README or README.Debian or some other appropriate
place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html

>From a slightly different perspective, here's what you *should* do to
write a copyright file:

1) Find the license declaration in the upstream source. That should
look like this for GPLed works:

---
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.
---

And similar. You are not looking for something that starts like this:

---
                    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                       Version 2, June 1991

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
     59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
---

Or this:

---
                         The "Artistic License"

                                Preamble
---

You need to find the bit which says "This program is distributable
under (license X|the following license:)". It is absolutely *NOT*
implicit that if a copy of the GPL (or some other license) is included
in the source tree, the work is licensed under the GPL. If no such
statement is present, no copyright license has been granted; go and
get the upstream author to add one, or we can't distribute it at all.

Copy that statement _verbatim_ into the copyright file. There should
be (but does not have to be) a list of copyright owners and dates
accompanying it. If there is, copy that too. If there isn't, do your
best to make a list, and ask upstream to include it in the upstream
source tree and keep it up to date.

If you have sought and received mail from the copyright holder
clarifying the copyright or license, include that verbatim.

2) Include your own name, email address, and copyright dates,
identified as the package maintainer. Copyright subsists in Debian
packaging itself; it's easily complicated enough for that, so you have
partial copyright interest in anything you package. Never remove names
or dates from this list unless you are repackaging from scratch.

3) Include a description of how you obtained the upstream source
tarball. This should be sufficient for anybody to duplicate the
process immediately, but don't worry too much if it isn't (eg, the
server is not public or no longer accessible).

4) If the license itself is present in /usr/share/common-licenses/,
include a reference to that file. Otherwise, include the full text of
the license itself.

Думаю что и нам следует принять аналогичное полиси, и настроить
sisyphus_check
на его проверку. І тогда думаю ситуации подобной нашей или той что была
с драйверами nVidia, о которой рассказывал Сергей Большаков ,уже не
повториться нікогда. 
-- 
Бизнесмены - пиявки сосущие кровь -- А. Лукашенко. The Wall Street
Journal, 30 ноября 1996 г.

[-- Attachment #2: Гэтая частка паведамленьня падпісана электронным подпісам --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]