LICENSES folder in /usr/share/doc/<pkg> ?

[c***@posteo.jp]

Hello,

I was not sure which list is appropriate for this question. Because of
that I try it here because I am quit familiar with this community.

To my understanding of the policy the license file of package should be
installed into

/usr/share/doc/<package>/LICENSE

How to handle it if a project does have multiple license files?

According to the REUSE standard (itself related to SPDX standard) an
upstream repository should have a folder named LICENSES containing the
licenses. See [1] as an example.

Would it be OK, just installing that folder in Debian GNU/Linux the same
way?

/usr/share/doc/<package>/LICENSES/*.txt

Regards,
Christian


[1] -- <https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/tree/dev/LICENSES>

[Stefano Rivera]

Hi c.buhtz (2024.11.18_12:31:01_+0000)

I was not sure which list is appropriate for this question. Because of that
I try it here because I am quit familiar with this community.
To my understanding of the policy the license file of package should be
installed into
/usr/share/doc/<package>/LICENSE

It's spelled: /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright

How to handle it if a project does have multiple license files?

We combine them all into a single file. See:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

According to the REUSE standard (itself related to SPDX standard) an
upstream repository should have a folder named LICENSES containing the
licenses. See [1] as an example.
Would it be OK, just installing that folder in Debian GNU/Linux the same
way?
/usr/share/doc/<package>/LICENSES/*.txt

I'm afraid not, that wouldn't comply with policy, §12.5 is fairly
specific.

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#copyright-debian-copyright

Not that policy can't be changed, but there'd need to be a good reason.
This scheme looks less expressive than Debian's machine-readable format.

Stefano

[c***@posteo.jp]

Hello Stefano,

thank you for your reply.

Post by Stefano Rivera

Post by c***@posteo.jp
To my understanding of the policy the license file of package should be
installed into
/usr/share/doc/<package>/LICENSE

It's spelled: /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright

To my understand the "copyright" file is something Debian specific.
This does not exist in my upstream project but is "generated" by my
Debian Package Maintainer.
There are several packages (e.g. "backintime-common" and
"backintime-qt") containing LICENSE
file and copyright file in that folder side by side.

Just assume that my DPM does handle the copyright file by himself in an
appropriate way.

But what about LICNESE file and a LICENSES folder for multiple licenses
files?

Post by Stefano Rivera
This scheme looks less expressive than Debian's machine-readable format.

SPDX is designed to be human- and machine readable. There is also a
linter "reuse lint".
I am also aware of Debian internal approaches to generate Debian policy
conform copyright
and license information based on SPDX meta data.

Regards,
Christian

[Andrey Rakhmatullin]

Post by c***@posteo.jp

Post by Stefano Rivera

Post by c***@posteo.jp
To my understanding of the policy the license file of package should be
installed into
/usr/share/doc/<package>/LICENSE

It's spelled: /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright

To my understand the "copyright" file is something Debian specific.
This does not exist in my upstream project but is "generated" by my Debian
Package Maintainer.

Correct. Which is what you were asking about.

Post by c***@posteo.jp
There are several packages (e.g. "backintime-common" and "backintime-qt")
containing LICENSE
file and copyright file in that folder side by side.

And lintian has an extra-license-file tag for such packages.

Post by c***@posteo.jp
Just assume that my DPM does handle the copyright file by himself in an
appropriate way.
But what about LICNESE file and a LICENSES folder for multiple licenses
files?

What about them that wasn't answered in the email you quoted and in the
Policy?

[c***@posteo.jp]

Hello Andrey,
Thank you for the reply.

Post by Andrey Rakhmatullin

Post by c***@posteo.jp
To my understand the "copyright" file is something Debian specific.
This does not exist in my upstream project but is "generated" by my Debian
Package Maintainer.

Correct. Which is what you were asking about.

IMHO not. But that seems to be because of our different perspectives.

Post by Andrey Rakhmatullin
And lintian has an extra-license-file tag for such packages.

https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/extra-license-file

Ah... Now, we come closer.

Post by Andrey Rakhmatullin

Post by c***@posteo.jp
But what about LICNESE file and a LICENSES folder for multiple licenses
files?

What about them that wasn't answered in the email you quoted and in the
Policy?

To my understand that wasn't answered.

Regarding the lintian tag am I assuming correct that Debian GNU/Linux
does not care about a LICENSE file or LICENSES folder?
So there is no real problem to have a LICENSES folder?
The "copyright" file will exist (downstream) no matter if there is a
LICENSE file, a LICENSES folder or any of this.

Correct?

Regards,
Christian

[Paul Boddie]

Post by c***@posteo.jp
To my understand that wasn't answered.

Yes, the collection of licences is something distinct from the copyright
information. In REUSE, the copyright information is maintained in a manifest
that should be compatible with the DEP-5 format.

Post by c***@posteo.jp
Regarding the lintian tag am I assuming correct that Debian GNU/Linux
does not care about a LICENSE file or LICENSES folder?
So there is no real problem to have a LICENSES folder?

I imagine that there will be a desire to prevent duplicate files being
installed, since there is /usr/share/common-licenses which is meant to hold
standard licence texts. Of course, custom licences would not feature among the
common-licenses and this is where REUSE's own licences collection for each
package could be useful, but some custom licences might preclude software from
being available in Debian in the first place.

Post by c***@posteo.jp
The "copyright" file will exist (downstream) no matter if there is a
LICENSE file, a LICENSES folder or any of this.

Indeed.

Paul

[Soren Stoutner]

Post by c***@posteo.jp
Regarding the lintian tag am I assuming correct that Debian GNU/Linux
does not care about a LICENSE file or LICENSES folder?
So there is no real problem to have a LICENSES folder?
The "copyright" file will exist (downstream) no matter if there is a
LICENSE file, a LICENSES folder or any of this.

The debian/copyright file must contain all the copyright information AND all
the license information. All the licenses from all the LICENSES files must be
copied into debian/copyright (the full text of common licenses can be
referenced against usr/share/common-licenses). Upstream LICENSES files should
not be shipped in Debian.

[Andrey Rakhmatullin]

Post by c***@posteo.jp

Post by Andrey Rakhmatullin

Post by c***@posteo.jp
To my understand the "copyright" file is something Debian specific.
This does not exist in my upstream project but is "generated" by my Debian
Package Maintainer.

Correct. Which is what you were asking about.

IMHO not. But that seems to be because of our different perspectives.

If you weren't actually asking about the requirements of the Policy then
you shouldn't have mentioned it...

Post by c***@posteo.jp

Post by Andrey Rakhmatullin
And lintian has an extra-license-file tag for such packages.

https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/extra-license-file
Ah... Now, we come closer.

Post by Andrey Rakhmatullin

Post by c***@posteo.jp
But what about LICNESE file and a LICENSES folder for multiple licenses
files?

What about them that wasn't answered in the email you quoted and in the
Policy?

To my understand that wasn't answered.

I asked what exactly wasn't answered...

Post by c***@posteo.jp
Regarding the lintian tag am I assuming correct that Debian GNU/Linux does
not care about a LICENSE file or LICENSES folder?

"Debian GNU/Linux" doesn't care if those files exist in the package.

Post by c***@posteo.jp
So there is no real problem to have a LICENSES folder?

Yes, there is no real problem to ship the licenses twice. It's just not
helpful.

Post by c***@posteo.jp
The "copyright" file will exist (downstream) no matter if there is a LICENSE
file, a LICENSES folder or any of this.

Of course, that's what the Policy mandates.