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