On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:16, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Because I only checked a hundred or so and over 30 of them were broken.
> My favorite example so far is fakeroot,
>
Isn't that Joost's original copyright message though? How the original
author chooses to write their copyright/licence information is up to
them :)
> but alsa-utils, autotools-dev,
> bash, bison, busybox-static, ccache, dbs, gq - to only name a few - also
> have bad copyright files.
>
Given just how many packages have broken copyright files, it's obvious
that the problem is insufficient documentation as to what makes a valid
one.
Most people when first starting would use the maint-guide example which
specifically says you DON'T need to include any licence information for
the GPL other than referring to /usr/share/common-licenses/
The important things to add to this file are the place you got
the package from and the actual copyright notice and license.
You must include the complete license, unless it's one of the
common free software licenses such as GNU GPL or LGPL, BSD or
the Artistic license, when you can just refer to the appropriate
file in /usr/share/common-licenses/ directory that exists on
every Debian system.
The templates used by dh_make also don't provide any hints that the full
copyright line is expected.
The documentation and examples should be changed.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part