Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2016-08-16 07:59:09) > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:10:42AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we >>> continue to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to >>> do so? >> >> Same reason that we should continue to care about ability to install >> multiple major versions of a library concurrently, and that daemons >> are not only linked correctly but also sensibly configured and >> started by default. >> >> Not because we are legally bound to do so, but because we want to do >> our job as distributors properly. We appreciate good quality >> packaging! > It's at least worth a discussion whether nitpicking at d/copyright is > really helping the package quality at all, and if it's worth it. Certainly. # Bugfixing upstream licensing Some upstreams had misunderstood some details of what are legally required of them, and appreciate our pointing out when we spot it as part of our documenting it. Some upstreams thought they communicated their licensing intent, and appreciate our reporting back when we do not understand their message, or that in our view their message is incoherent² or clashes with the intent of some of _their_ upstreams³. ¹ E.g. GPL (without version) ² E.g. some parts GPL-2 (not GPL-2+) and some GPL-3 ³ E.g. OpenSSL vs. GPL (without OpenSSL exception). # Bugfixing our licensing Some linking within our own distribution have particular licensing needs, and our fellow package maintainers are then helped in their ensuring that by (not only reading _all_ involved source code, but also) cross-checking with the documentation done for each existing package. # Use of Debian Some downstreams have particular licensing needs, and are then helped in their ensuring those needs are properly met for the packages they choose to include. # Setting (not only following) standards Tracking copyright and licensing info is tiresome: It is manual work. Ideally copyright and licensing info is expressed machine-readable at the source - i.e. by each upstream, and tools rely on that - i.e. "make doc" would imply "make credit" using copyright statements as source for e.g. AUTHORS file, and "make install" would imply "make legal" using licensing info also of linked libraries as source of a validation). Some upstreams have adopted our debian/copyright format. Some use other machine-readable formats. But very few so far. Why? Our core business as distribution is to fuse together extreme amounts of projects, so obviously we feel the pain of tracking copyright and licensing info far stronger than each individual upstream project. Debian invented and is bound by the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Those do not try identify the least we *must* do legally - they define what we *want* Free software to be. Debian is famous for the DFSG, for covering many architectures and several kernels, for handling multiple concurrently installed architectures, for its long-term support, for handling multiple concurrently installed versions of same libraries, etc. etc. All of that is hard work at first where upstream projects have little recognition ot the benefit of supporting it, but has gained interest and is becoming easier as upstreams adopt the structures we (and others) propose. Please let's continue to lead the way: Because proper copyright and licensing is a crucial and integral part of Free software, and because Debian want that addressed technically sound rather than manually. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature