SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#1 2015-03-05 07:30:20

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2009-01-07
Posts: 4,148
Website

Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

OK as a test case I've just uploaded bunsen-wmhacks to GitHub: https://github.com/BunsenLabs/bunsen-wmhacks

The package has been renamed from cb-wmhacks.
The scripts have been renamed to bl-* instead of cb-*
The (python) code is identical to cb-wmhacks except for references to the two file names.
The Debian packaging has been re-done to make it compliant with the current dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) format.
The maintainer has been changed from Philip to me.
References like "made for Crunchbang by Philip Newborough" have been changed to things like "originally made for CrunchBang by Philip..."

It seemed wrong to name Philip as the maintainer of a package he probably has no further intent on maintaining, and which might be edited in the future to suit the needs of BunsenLabs.

Further, the WTFPL license the original package was released under has been replaced by GPL3, which is presumably OK under WTF as are all the other changes I've made, so my question is not so much about whether these changes are allowed, but whether they are cool or not.

If anyone would like to read some of the package files, does this look like a reasonable way of going about things?


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
#! forum moderator    BunsenLabs

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#2 2015-03-05 11:37:02

brontosaurusrex
#! Red Menace
Registered: 2012-06-15
Posts: 1,643

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

johnraff wrote:

References like "made for Crunchbang by Philip Newborough" have been changed to things like "originally made for CrunchBang by Philip..."

If I understood the man, his name (and the crunchbang) must/should be removed, but he can speak for himself.

Last edited by brontosaurusrex (2015-03-05 11:37:31)

Offline

#3 2015-03-05 12:38:00

pvsage
Internal Affairs
From: North Carolina
Registered: 2009-10-18
Posts: 13,970

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

I think it's appropriate - and polite - to include an "originally made by" or "inspired by" in the package description.  As Bronty said, Philip can clarify just how clean a break he wants, but afaik proper attribution of prior art is imperative when making derivatives.
source: everything I've read about fan art, abridged series, etc. since becoming a Brony.  Hasbro don't dick around with this s 8o .

Offline

#4 2015-03-05 12:45:46

Sector11
#!'er to BL'er
From: SR11 Cockpit
Registered: 2010-05-05
Posts: 15,667
Website

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

Tough one - seems cool on the surface.  But maybe a direct PM/email to Philip might clear up that issue.

My 'personal' preference is to give credit where credit is due. Maybe change:

# Repackaged for BunsenLabs by John Crawley.
# Originally written for CrunchBang Linux <http://crunchbang.org/>
# by Philip Newborough <corenominal@corenominal.org>

to

# Updated, Renamed and Repackaged for BunsenLabs by John Crawley.
# Originally written by Philip Newborough <corenominal@corenominal.org>

1st line is acceptable under the original licence
2nd line gives credit where credit is due and follows through with the no "CrunchBang" thought.

I do have one Question though:  Can you © 2015 something that was © 2012 by someone else?

EDIT: Ninja'd by TheSage ... I had to leave the computer.   cool

Last edited by Sector11 (2015-03-05 12:46:48)


·  ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓  ·
BunsenLabs Forums now Open for Registration
·  ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑  · BL ModSquad

Offline

#5 2015-03-05 16:16:36

tknomanzr
#! Die Hard
From: Heavener, OK
Registered: 2014-12-09
Posts: 777

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

I had left Phillip as the original creator in what scripts I have gotten around to modifying. It just doesn't seem proper to me not to credit the source. Of course, I work in a business where proper attribution keeps us out out lawsuits. I did run into that one script where Phillip had said, do what you want just remove my name, so that led to some ambiguity. As long as it's clear that he was the original creator, no longer maintains the scripts and doesn't want to be bothered with endless questions, bug reports, etc. regarding them, I see no harm in giving him proper credit.

Offline

#6 2015-03-05 19:48:27

Head_on_a_Stick
CatMod
From: A world of pure imagination
Registered: 2014-01-21
Posts: 4,797

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

@johnraff -- what you suggest seems very proper and correct.

Offline

#7 2015-03-05 23:27:36

twoion
Moderator
Registered: 2012-05-11
Posts: 1,648

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

johnraff wrote:

OK as a test case I've just uploaded bunsen-wmhacks to GitHub: https://github.com/BunsenLabs/bunsen-wmhacks

The package has been renamed from cb-wmhacks.
The scripts have been renamed to bl-* instead of cb-*
The (python) code is identical to cb-wmhacks except for references to the two file names.
The Debian packaging has been re-done to make it compliant with the current dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) format.
The maintainer has been changed from Philip to me.
References like "made for Crunchbang by Philip Newborough" have been changed to things like "originally made for CrunchBang by Philip..."

History as far as the adoption of former cb-* packages goes can be documented in debian/README.debian (policy) and should IMHO not be added to the individual files/scripts beyond a Copyright line for Philip when replacing/adding a license header. Newly added headers should only contain a concise description of what the stuff in the file does/is. IMHO, and RFC.

In any case, single files' licenses, copyrights and authors' contributions should be properly noted in debian/copyright.

On a similar note, lintian(1) produces the following warning for almost all of our artwork packages which to fix I have refrained from (example):

W: bunsen1-dark-theme: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/bunsen1-dark-theme/LICENSE.CC.gz

From https://lintian.debian.org/tags/extra-license-file.html:

All license information should be collected in the debian/copyright file. This usually makes it unnecessary for the package to install this information in other places as well.

    Refer to Debian Policy Manual section 12.5 (Copyright information) for details.

    Severity: normal, Certainty: possible

    Check: files, Type: binary, udeb

Should we continue to distribute files like LICENSE.GPL or LICENSE.CC etc? In my opinion: If they are part of the original source (even if created by one of us), yes. Otherwise, no; don't add an extra LICENSE file. RFC.


Tannhäuser ~ {www,pkg,ddl}.bunsenlabs.org/{gitlog,repoidx}

Offline

#8 2015-03-06 04:46:49

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2009-01-07
Posts: 4,148
Website

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

I thinkthe LICENSE file is something that GitHub puts in the repo's root if you choose a license from the web GUI. Of course GitHub isn't only hosting Debian packages, and adding that file is probably a good default policy. In our case, if it's already covered by debian/copyright then maybe we can leave it out?


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
#! forum moderator    BunsenLabs

Offline

#9 2015-03-06 04:52:03

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2009-01-07
Posts: 4,148
Website

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

Sector11 wrote:

I do have one Question though:  Can you © 2015 something that was © 2012 by someone else?

Not as far as I know. The 2015 copyright refers to changes that were made in 2015, ie mostly the stuff in debian/  plus, in the case of bunsen-wmhacks, some editing of filepaths.


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
#! forum moderator    BunsenLabs

Offline

#10 2015-03-06 05:07:14

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2009-01-07
Posts: 4,148
Website

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

twoion wrote:

History as far as the adoption of former cb-* packages goes can be documented in debian/README.debian (policy) and should IMHO not be added to the individual files/scripts beyond a Copyright line for Philip when replacing/adding a license header.

This seems reasonable. But what to do if there is no original license header?

Newly added headers should only contain a concise description of what the stuff in the file does/is. IMHO, and RFC.

...so nothing about recent edits or attribution? All that should go in README.debian? Details of edits to individual files all go there?

In any case, single files' licenses, copyrights and authors' contributions should be properly noted in debian/copyright.

The default entries are
Files:  *
Files: debian/*
Is this too broad? Does each file need an individual entry?


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
#! forum moderator    BunsenLabs

Offline

#11 2015-03-08 02:12:50

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2009-01-07
Posts: 4,148
Website

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

johnraff wrote:

I thinkthe LICENSE file is something that GitHub puts in the repo's root if you choose a license from the web GUI. Of course GitHub isn't only hosting Debian packages, and adding that file is probably a good default policy. In our case, if it's already covered by debian/copyright then maybe we can leave it out?

On reflection, if LICENSE is not in debian/docs then it won't be installed, so we can still perhaps have a copy in the repo root for GitHub?


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
#! forum moderator    BunsenLabs

Offline

#12 2015-03-08 12:40:50

twoion
Moderator
Registered: 2012-05-11
Posts: 1,648

Re: Renaming packages, attribution and etiquette

johnraff wrote:
johnraff wrote:

I thinkthe LICENSE file is something that GitHub puts in the repo's root if you choose a license from the web GUI. Of course GitHub isn't only hosting Debian packages, and adding that file is probably a good default policy. In our case, if it's already covered by debian/copyright then maybe we can leave it out?

On reflection, if LICENSE is not in debian/docs then it won't be installed, so we can still perhaps have a copy in the repo root for GitHub?

Yes, and no harm would be done.


Tannhäuser ~ {www,pkg,ddl}.bunsenlabs.org/{gitlog,repoidx}

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Server: acrobat

Debian Logo