Re: copyright precision
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Dropping most of the Cc list as we move to general handling of similar
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 01:30:39PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
ISTM that in situations where Built-Using is arguably relevant, there
is also often a requirement to make sure the copyright file(s) of the
.deb(s) contains information from the allegedly-Built-Using source
Your expectation is so far removed from our current practise that I
hardly see where to start.
So if there is a problem, shouldn't we start to solve it instead of just
ignoring it? Wouldn't it be better to set high standards instead of being
guided by convenience?
It seems that doing this license tracking properly is beyond our
No, one must just be aware of the problem. Nobody said that everything
must be fine by tomorrow.
IMO dh_doxygen should sort this out.
I see one person calling for this and no consensus.
Isn't policy enough consensus?