Quoting Andreas Tille (2016-08-17 10:55:01) > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:13:30PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > > > I always use this as one argument when it comes to "Why should be care > > > about Debian? Our users use something else", that packaging includes a > > > careful review and documentation of the copyright. > > Usually only for the initial upload, though. > > + package renamings and new binary packages (which sometimes let me > hesitate to do a necessary package split since I'm afraid that it takes > longer to release a new version. Fortunately ftpmaster became quite > quick in the last time). > > I admit I'm not convinced that a change in the binary package name is a > sensible criterion to pick a (random) package for re-checking > debian/copyright. > > Apropos binary package: I do not yet know what exactly would have been > the solution to my initial problem of the copyright of auto-generated > files in the binary package. Does this mean the issue is void or not? That depends on which alternate reality you are asking about... In a distant future with compiled code effective license tracking: a) source package doxygen auto-resolves jquery.js source licensing b) binary package doxygen auto-resolves jquery.js effective licensing c) your source package build-depends on doxygen d) your binary package auto-resolves jquery.js effective licensing e) ftpmasters approves properly documented jquery.js licensing Challenge: Invent effective license resolver and get it widely used. In a future with source code license tracking: a) source package doxygen auto-resolves jquery.js source licensing b) binary package doxygen mentions jquery.js source licensing c) your source package build-depends on doxygen d) your binary package ignores jquery.js source licensing e) ftpmaster tolerates jquery.js licensing only in other package Challenge: Release dh-copyright¹ and get it widely used. In a near future with ftpmasters and release managers collaborating: a) source package doxygen maybe lists jquery.js source licensing b) binary package doxygen maybe lists jquery.js source licensing c) your source package build-depends on doxygen d) your binary package ignores jquery.js source licensing e) ftpmaster tolerates jquery.js licensing but flags as RC bug f) release managers maybe tolerate RC bug as for upcoming release In the present of a parallel universe with sloppy ftpmasters: a) source package doxygen maybe lists jquery.js source licensing b) binary package doxygen maybe lists jquery.js source licensing c) your source package build-depends on doxygen d) your binary package ignores jquery.js source licensing e) ftpmaster tolerates jquery.js licensing maybe in other package In the present of a parallel universe with sloppy developers: a) source package doxygen maybe lists jquery.js source licensing b) binary package doxygen maybe lists jquery.js source licensing c) your source package build-depends on doxygen d) your binary package ignores jquery.js source licensing e) ftpmaster ignores jquery.js licensing as unimportant detail - Jonas ¹ https://bugs.debian.org/834544 -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature