Re: making debian/copyright machine-interpretable
Sam Hocevar <sam@zoy.org> writes:
> I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
It overall seems reasonable to me, although it surfaces other issues that
we've been somewhat ignoring. For example, with a format for clearly
expressing copyrights that vary per file, it raises the question if we
should be noting such things. Most packages that use Autoconf and friends
have files in the distribution (the generated configure and the like)
covered by a different license and copyright than the rest of the
distribution, and for the most part people are not noting this in
debian/copyright.
I'd like to see a field added to explain any repackaging of the upstream
source that was done, or an explicit statement that this should go into
the second and subsequent lines of the Source field, since I think
debian/copyright is the appropriate location for such information.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: