Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net> writes: > On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 18:03 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > the package as originally uploaded had copyright notices preserved > > in the source, but not duplicated into the ‘copyright’ file. > > Your experience seems to be covered by > http://lintian.debian.org/tags/copyright-without-copyright-notice.html > and > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html > (linked from http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html) That covers the rejection of a package that triggers that Lintian tag. Not covered there is the acceptance of a package with a ‘copyright’ file containing copyright notices that don't match what is found in the original source. Torsten Werner <twerner@debian.org> writes: > Ben Finney schrieb: > > My response was to Chris only (to the ftpmaster address), giving my > > understanding that Debian Policy §12.5 requires only the verbatim > > copyright *license terms*, not the duplication of copyright *notices*, > > to be in the ‘copyright’ file; and asking for clarification on their > > position. > > policy states: "copyright and distribution license". That are 2 pieces > of information (IMHO: copyright info AND license terms). Yet as we discovered during discussions several months ago, there are a wealth of packages in Debian that *don't* duplicate every single copyright notice from the source into the ‘copyright’ file; and, indeed, that many developers don't consider it useful to do so and balk at such duplication. The wording is ambiguous; it's easy to read that section as requiring only the license (specifically, the copyright and distribution license). The interpretation you give is another possible reading of that clause. If the governing interpretation is that “all copyright notices and distribution license” need to be duplicated into the file, how many packages in Debian are violating policy by this reading? More to the point, does this interpretation actually match the consensus of the project? Most worrying, *neither* of those interpretations matches my experience, nor does it match what I understand to be common practice: that the ‘copyright’ file contains the full license text, but an *arbitrary subset* of copyright notices, usually out of date with the source, inaccurate, and incomplete. Is a package unsuitable for Debian because its ‘copyright’ file fails to completely duplicate all the copyright notices from the source? Should every package that is also in that state be flagged as violating a policy directive? -- \ “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything | `\ that's even remotely true!” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpfg2anfDsV8.pgp
Description: PGP signature