[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New field in binary stanza

Il giorno Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:39:22 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> ha scritto:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 04:51:13PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> > would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> > package?

First of all, thank you for the kind reply. It seemed like the Christmas spirit
has been blown away from this list.

> I understand your need, but in this case (as opposed to the others you
> mention) I believe a new field is not the right solution. The reason is
> that in the general case too many information would need to be encoded
> in such a field; that's why a machine interpretable copyright format has
> been proposed [1].

Well, my proposal was for an optional field: who wants it, uses it.

Anyway, I'm seeing that what I'm telling now has already been proposed for
debian/copyright. The problem is still there though: the chance to see some
information about the license of not installed packages not being connected to
the Internet.

> To avoid bloating the Sources (see other replies) the only possible way
> in between would be to have such a field only for "simple cases" (e.g.
> GPL-only packages). But I'm way in favour of no information over partial
> information.

Well, most of Debian packages have simple licenses (see: GPL, BSD, MIT). And,
again, the field would be totally optional.

> Maybe the related question is: once the debian/copyright format is
> widespread enough, how can we make such an information available
> archive-wide mechanically?

That might be an alternative. Is there any progress on the CopyrightFormat
proposal? I can't find anything on the wiki.

Thank you.

Buon Natale,

 . ''`.  Debian maintainer |  http://snipurl.com/qa_page
 : :'  :  Linuxer #334216  |  http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`    GPG: 1392B174   | http://www.debianizzati.org/
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: