Bug#1089625: dap-mode 0.8-1 upload

[Soren Stoutner]

Xiyue,

I took a look at the machine-readable copyright format document[1],
specifically the example given in the copyright section 6.8, and I
think it meant that if a group of file shares any copyright holder(s),
those files can be grouped in the same stanza - in the example, Angela
Watts appeared in both source files so those files can share the same
stanza. I think in the case for dap-mode, each file has only a single
copyright holder so may be this simplification doesn't apply, so I opt
to provide separate stanza for all files. I surely hope I can list
everyone under "Files: *" so that things can be simpler, but keeping it
as-is just in case.

Every file in a given stanza must have the exact same license. But they don’t
need to have the same copyright information. Meaning that if file A is
copyright 2020 Alice and file B is copyright 2021 Bob, they can be grouped as:

Files: fileA
fileB
Copyright: 2020 Alice
2021 Bob
License: Some-License

https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#copyright-field

The reason why it is structured this way is that it easily tells people which
files they can use under which license. The purpose of this design is not to
list the individual copyright of each file (that would make debian/copyright
enormously large for big projects). Rather, it says, "You can use all of the
files in this stanza under this license. If, for some reason, you need to
relicense all of these files under a different license, you would need to
contact all of the copyright holders listed here to get permission to
relicense. If you only need to relicense some of the files in this stanza,
debian/copyright does not provide detailed information about which of the files
are under each copyright, but you are free to check the individual files to sus
out that information.”

As an example, check out the following debian/copyright:

https://salsa.debian.org/soren/feather-wallet/-/blob/main/debian/copyright?
ref_type=heads#L29-46

[Xiyue Deng]

Hi Soren

Post by Soren Stoutner
Xiyue,

I took a look at the machine-readable copyright format document[1],
specifically the example given in the copyright section 6.8, and I
think it meant that if a group of file shares any copyright holder(s),
those files can be grouped in the same stanza - in the example, Angela
Watts appeared in both source files so those files can share the same
stanza. I think in the case for dap-mode, each file has only a single
copyright holder so may be this simplification doesn't apply, so I opt
to provide separate stanza for all files. I surely hope I can list
everyone under "Files: *" so that things can be simpler, but keeping it
as-is just in case.

Every file in a given stanza must have the exact same license. But they don’t
need to have the same copyright information. Meaning that if file A is
Files: fileA
fileB
Copyright: 2020 Alice
2021 Bob
License: Some-License
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#copyright-field
The reason why it is structured this way is that it easily tells people which
files they can use under which license. The purpose of this design is not to
list the individual copyright of each file (that would make debian/copyright
enormously large for big projects). Rather, it says, "You can use all of the
files in this stanza under this license. If, for some reason, you need to
relicense all of these files under a different license, you would need to
contact all of the copyright holders listed here to get permission to
relicense. If you only need to relicense some of the files in this stanza,
debian/copyright does not provide detailed information about which of the files
are under each copyright, but you are free to check the individual files to sus
out that information.”

Thanks for the detailed explanation! AIUI, as long as the files are
using the same license, their copyright holders can be grouped by one
stanza, regardless of individual file copyright holder differences. Is
my understanding correct?

Post by Soren Stoutner
https://salsa.debian.org/soren/feather-wallet/-/blob/main/debian/copyright?
ref_type=heads#L29-46

I was initially confused by multiple "BSD-3-clause" stanzas, but later
realized that there was another license stanza for the upper directory
(very subtle).

Post by Soren Stoutner
--
Soren Stoutner

[Soren Stoutner]

Post by Xiyue Deng
Thanks for the detailed explanation! AIUI, as long as the files are
using the same license, their copyright holders can be grouped by one
stanza, regardless of individual file copyright holder differences. Is
my understanding correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Post by Xiyue Deng

Post by Soren Stoutner
https://salsa.debian.org/soren/feather-wallet/-/blob/main/debian/

copyright?

Post by Xiyue Deng

Post by Soren Stoutner
ref_type=heads#L29-46

I was initially confused by multiple "BSD-3-clause" stanzas, but later
realized that there was another license stanza for the upper directory
(very subtle).

Feather-wallet has a surprisingly complex debian/copyright file given the small
size of the codebase. That is why I choose to link to it, because it covers a
large number of corner cases, and so is good for explanation purposes. I can
tell you that writing it wasn’t exactly my idea of a fun time.

[Soren Stoutner]

I saw that you reformatted copyright claims to drop the (C) and to add
commas. Generally licenses require us to reproduce copyright notices
verbatim. IANAL, but reformatting is probably not justified.

Generally, both licenses and copyright information must be reproduced
verbatim. However, the *definition* of verbatim is different than how some
people understand the word. Specifically, verbatim in licensing and copyright
means the the *information* must not be changed, but the *formatting* may be
changed.

For example:

1. “years of publication for one copyright holder may be gathered together”

https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#copyright-field

2. Indented periods replace empty lines in licenses in debian/copyright.

Other examples involve switching the formatting of the file, like switching
between HTML and ASCII, or switching the encoding, like switching between
UTF-16 and UTF-8 (debian/copyright must be UTF-8).

None of these are verbatim in the sense of a diff comparison, but they are all
verbatim in the sense of all the original information being preserved.

Similarly, using (C) or commas is a formatting decision, not an aspect of the
verbatim meaning of the original text.

[Xiyue Deng]

Hi Soren,

Post by Soren Stoutner

I saw that you reformatted copyright claims to drop the (C) and to add
commas. Generally licenses require us to reproduce copyright notices
verbatim. IANAL, but reformatting is probably not justified.

Generally, both licenses and copyright information must be reproduced
verbatim. However, the *definition* of verbatim is different than how some
people understand the word. Specifically, verbatim in licensing and copyright
means the the *information* must not be changed, but the *formatting* may be
changed.
1. “years of publication for one copyright holder may be gathered together”
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#copyright-field
2. Indented periods replace empty lines in licenses in debian/copyright.
Other examples involve switching the formatting of the file, like switching
between HTML and ASCII, or switching the encoding, like switching between
UTF-16 and UTF-8 (debian/copyright must be UTF-8).
None of these are verbatim in the sense of a diff comparison, but they are all
verbatim in the sense of all the original information being preserved.
Similarly, using (C) or commas is a formatting decision, not an aspect of the
verbatim meaning of the original text.

Thanks for the insightful explanation. I hope I have the confidence to
understand "verbatim" as you explained it, and it would save reviewers'
time on this matter of course. Still, I would have to admit that as a
non-native speaker I would be a bit hesitant :P

Post by Soren Stoutner
--
Soren Stoutner

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 19 Dec 2024 12:03:49 +0800
with message-id <***@melete.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#1089625: dap-mode 0.8-1 upload
has caused the Debian Bug report #1089625,
regarding RFS: dap-mode/0.8-1 -- DAP UI controls implemented using treemacs
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ***@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)