Re: debian/copyright: how extensive ...
On 13507 March 1977, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> When FTP master rejected previous upload rightfully, he had interesting
> message:
[...]
> He was not asking to list auto-generated files with permissive licenses.
[...]
> (These all are autotools generated special exception ones with slightly
> different wordings.)
Yes.
> Is there any rules in place written somewhere?
If one takes it all the way to the end, then each and every file ought
to be documented. This, however, is not realistic, especially not for
the class of files you listed. The more people do this, the better, but
we would have to reject 90% of all uploads if we enforce listings like this.
> I need a correct list so I can exclude them from debmake copyright check
> list.
There is no such thing as a "correct list".
> Also, not all files in archive come copyright/license text within the file.
Not all files CAN come with a license included in them. It is one of the
reasons why one (upstream) should include a file with the (C)/license
text prominently in the distribution. Than one can default to "files not
marked especially with a license follow that one" and revisit that idea
when there is reasonable doubt. (Say, multiple files with license text,
having lots of source files appearently imported, ...)
> There is no DEP-5 rules on what to do.
There is no way to have a clear rule.
--
bye, Joerg
<Overfiend> joshk: okay. I've manned a Debian booth before. I need to give
you a quick training session.
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
<Overfiend> "So, when's sarge going to be released?"
Reply to: