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

Re: DEP5: minor suggestions - FSF address etc.

Le Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:06:53AM -0500, Jari Aalto a écrit :
> In my opinion, we should follow strictly how FSF recommends the GPL to be
> presented. The use of postal addresses is no longer the FSF's current
> postion.
Le Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:14:36AM -0500, Jari Aalto a écrit :
> I though that DEP5 was intended to use for Debian and not to record how
> upstram chose to write their copyright statements.
> I feel that Debian should focus on standards and therefore also present
> those standards in DEP documents to the readers that follow the DEPs.

Hi again,

I think that it is very important that developers understand that the
machine-readable format is not adding any extra requirement about what
the contents of a Debian copyright file should be.

1) Correcting the FSF address in GPL-2 notices is unusual in Debian,
   and if we do so in our examples I am worried that it may be interpreted
   that it is necessary.  Again, the link you sent does not mention GPL
   version 2.  Can you point at a FSF statement that recommends, for those
   who do not upgrade to GPL version 3, to at least replace the postal
   address by the URL ?

2) The reason for collecting copyright statements is, in my understanding,
   to respect the licenses.  This need may be fictional as the source and
   binary packages are considered a single entity in order to respect the
   GPL v1 and v2, but that is the way we do it.  In that sense, reformatting
   upstream statements, even when they are bogus, is not a necessity and
   again, while the machine-readable format allows to do more than necessary
   it is important to make clear that this is optional.  In that sense,
   I think that it is good that multiple examples show multiple styles,
   even if one is inferior or typograhpically illogical.

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: