Comments on python-cinderclient 2012.2~f1~20120621.8-0ubuntu1

[Colin Watson]

I'm accepting python-cinderclient 2012.2~f1~20120621.8-0ubuntu1, but I
have a few comments which it would be good to address:

Why is debian/* under a more restrictive licence than the upstream
source?  As noted in the trailing comment in debian/copyright, this can
pose problems with sending patches upstream.

In fact, I almost had to reject this because the Apache 2.0 licence and
the GPLv2 are incompatible
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2); if debian/* had
been GPLv2-only then this would have rendered the package
undistributable since that includes a patch to the upstream source.
However, fortunately, Apache 2.0 and GPLv3 are compatible, so the work
as a whole is distributable under those combined terms.

However, this is much more complex an analysis than it needed to be.
You should almost certainly just licence debian/* under the same terms
as the upstream source, which AFAIK is Canonical's recommended practice
anyway, and avoid any such doubts.

Speaking of that trailing comment, lintian says this, which you should
clean up:

E: python-cinderclient: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate
N:
N:   The string "Please also look if..." appears in the copyright file,
N:   which indicates that you either didn't check the whole source to find
N:   additional copyright/license, or that you didn't remove that paragraph
N:   after having done so.
N:
N:   Refer to Debian Policy Manual section 12.5 (Copyright information) for
N:   details.
N:
N:   Severity: serious, Certainty: possible
N:
N:   Check: copyright-file, Type: binary
N:

tools/rfc.sh is licensed under the GPLv3 and should be listed in
debian/copyright as such.  This is mainly informational as it doesn't
seem to be used during the build process or shipped in the resulting
binary package, so it's mere aggregation and there's no need to consider
licence compatibility.

Thanks,

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]