Re: debian/copyright for files not part of the binary packages? [joerg@debian.org: Re: freetds_0.82-2_amd64.changes REJECTED]

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

        Hey,

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have recently had a package rejected out of NEW on the grounds that the
> debian/copyright file was incomplete for not listing the GFDL, which is used
> as the license for some documentation that is shipped in the source but not
> included in the binary packages.

 I understand you raise that a) this is not expected usage of
 debian/copyright and b) ftpmasters shouldn't raise such issues at the
 time of an unrelated trip to NEW.  I would just like to comment on a).

 I do think we should cover copyright and licensing of all files in all
 source packages.  The data isn't useful on installed systems but since
 we do distribute sources, I think the full source packages should be
 covered, or stripped before upload.

 I wouldn't mind re-using the current debian/copyright (preferably in
 a machine-readable format) and /usr/share/doc/*/copyright files, but if
 you think this can cause clutter, a debian/copyright.source might
 be an option.  Or we could change the machine-readable format in a way
 expressing "source-only" licensing chunks.  We could go as far as
 having per binary package copyright files if individual maintainers are
 tempted to maintain these.

   Cheers,
-- 
Loïc Minier