groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [groff] 01/01: Update copyright


From: Ingo Schwarze
Subject: Re: [groff] 01/01: Update copyright
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 18:16:44 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)

Hi Bertrand,

Bertrand Garrigues wrote on Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 07:54:43PM -0400:

> bgarrigues pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository groff.
> 
> commit a2e955e07354c83939fabffebcf720d3333d1f6b
> Author: Bertrand Garrigues <bertrand.garrigues@laposte.net>
> AuthorDate: Sun Oct 25 01:11:38 2020 +0200
> 
>     Update copyright
>     
>     Use gnulib's update-copyright script.

Please don't blindly rely on defective scripts.
Before you commit something, you always have to check it.

I think at least part of this commit must be reverted.

> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
> index 94a9ed0..d59107f 100644
> --- a/COPYING
> +++ b/COPYING
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>                      GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>                         Version 3, 29 June 2007
>  
> - Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
> + Copyright (C) 2007-2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
>   Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>   of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

This is a blatant lie.  The GPLv3 was published in 2007, period.
That groff uses it does not give us a legal right to falsify the
Copyright statement.

> diff --git a/FDL b/FDL
> index 2f7e03c..4b6ed96 100644
> --- a/FDL
> +++ b/FDL
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
>                   Version 1.3, 3 November 2008
>  
>  
> - Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> + Copyright (C) 2000-2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>       <http://fsf.org/>
>   Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>   of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Same here.

> diff --git a/bootstrap b/bootstrap
> index 4405986..2fe5f7b 100755
> --- a/bootstrap
> +++ b/bootstrap
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ scriptversion=2017-01-09.19; # UTC
>  
>  # Bootstrap this package from checked-out sources.
>  
> -# Copyright (C) 2003-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +# Copyright (C) 2003-2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>  
>  # 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

Is that file really changed and maintained in groff, or is taken
verbatim from upstream?  Changing Copyright noticed on something
that you take unchanged from upstream feels like bad practice to me.

Legally, in such a case, groff functions as a compilation.  While the
compilation as a whole is under the groff Copyright, the Copyright
of outside Works included in the compilation do not change.

> diff --git a/doc/fdl.texi b/doc/fdl.texi
> index 46f6b81..992705d 100644
> --- a/doc/fdl.texi
> +++ b/doc/fdl.texi
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>  @c hence no sectioning command or @node.
>  
>  @display
> -Copyright @copyright{} 2000-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +Copyright @copyright{} 2000--2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>  @uref{http://fsf.org/}
>  
>  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies

This is clearly illegal.  We are only permitted to distribute
*verbatim* copies, not copies with a changed (and factually inorrect!)
Copyright statement.

> diff --git a/m4/codeset.m4 b/m4/codeset.m4
> index 4f09722..6b164d4 100644
> --- a/m4/codeset.m4
> +++ b/m4/codeset.m4
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>  # codeset.m4 serial 5 (gettext-0.18.2)
> -dnl Copyright (C) 2000-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +dnl Copyright (C) 2000-2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>  dnl This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
>  dnl gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
>  dnl with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

This looks like unchanged upstream code (Bruno Haible).
That probably applies to the whole directory, or at least to
several parts of it.

I did not scrutinize all 500 files, there are likely several more
errors that must be reverted.

If you feel that you must edit 500 files, i think it is your
repsonsibility to make sure that your change to every single one
of them is correct.  Yes, that is a lot of work.  But committing
unchecked and illegal changes is not OK IMHO.

Yours,
  Ingo

P.S.
I still think that keeping the Copyright notice of each single file
up to date whenever one adds non-trivial changes to an individual
file is not only more useful but also causes less work, in particular
in a project with very large numbers of files that rarely change.
But i do realize that some groff developers want a uniform Copyright
statement across all groff files.  Still, those who want that must
make sure it is done correctly.



reply via email to

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