Re: Reporting 1.2K crashes
Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 08:06:54PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It is, however, closely related to all of those things and you end up
>> usually satisfying all of those requirements at the same time for quite
>> a few packages, as has been discussed many times in the past.
> I see some value in distinguishing between upstream contact points for
> problems with the software (bugs and such) and upstream contact points
> for licensing issues (such as restoration of rights after a GPL-2
> violation). debian/copyright seems like the logical place for the
> latter but not the former.
Yeah, I agree. (And sorry about being grumpy last night.) Or, to
elaborate a bit, I think debian/copyright currently collects all the
information that people need about the licensing, including the
information required to verify the license with upstream. That's why we
have the provenance (so that you know exactly what is included in the
package and where it came from, including anything excluded due to
licensing), the upstream URL and name (so that you can find the same code
again directly from upstream to verify the licensing if needed), and the
upstream authors (so that you can reach them directly with questions about
licensing).
It doesn't all have to be there, of course, but I do think those are all
good things for Debian packages to document in general.
For the packages whose upstreams are single people or small groups, this
probably will be a distinction without a difference. I don't know if, to
be completely correct, we should really be separating the contact for
licensing questions from the contact for bug reports for, say, all the GNU
software that we package, where it really could be different contacts.
(Although I don't know that the GNU project specifically publishes such a
contact, unless it's licensing@gnu.org.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: