On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:01:42AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > How about - instead of codifying into Polict that some licensing is ok > to ignore (which sounds very wrong to me) we instead recognize that some > pattern of files are very commonly the same across packages: Add a DEP-5 > snippet to /usr/share/common-licenses that is always assumed included in > debian/copyright of any package. > > Concretely I propose the attached file for that. Thanks a lot for your snippet!, I find it very helpful. OTOH, the proposal of shipping it under /usr/share/common-licenses/ violates the self-containedness of copyright information, which is a nice property to have. (To some extent we already violate that property by shipping some full license texts under /usr/share/common-licenses/, but at least the information about the mapping file<->license names is currently expected to be available in the packages themselves.) How about using your snippet to improve our packaging work-flows instead? For instance, we can have a lintian check that verifies if those files are present in the source package and emit a warning if they are not listed (with the correct license) in debian/copyright. Note that, thanks to the semantics of DEP-5, it is possible to do this properly and avoid false positives also in the few cases where the files are present in the source package but do not need explicit mention (e.g., because their license matches the more general license of the rest of the package). Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature