Hi Ian, As a preface to my comments: I am *only* complaining about collecting copyright notices. I agree that collecting together a comprehensive license statement(s) is necessary. The caveats of Russ Alberry [1] aside, these are two distinct tasks in my eyes. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/12/msg00198.html On Thursday, December 7, 2017 5:28:12 PM CST Ian Jackson wrote: > And of course the per-contributor > notices information is sometimes required, I guess that you're referring to the kind of license grants that Russ identified? If that's in the license, then yes: we are bound by it. However, that is NOT the case for a large number of licenses and is specifically NOT the case for Boost -- which is what started my complaint. In these cases, I am still waiting for a cogent explanation of what purpose this serves. In my experience, it wastes my time and likely that of FTP Masters. -- The frustration is compounded by the fact that overworked FTP-masters leave a NEW upload pending for 4 weeks then reject it based on a new interpretation of Debian Policy. This is demotivating, I have to say. The debian/copyright file contained the offending phrase for YEARS, and linux kernel copyright continues to have a similar collective copyright notice. I'm sure there are others. It's a shame the FTP masters are not participating in the discussion. However, the consensus voiced in this thread (as was the case of the same in 2016) is that while license summarizing (which can include, if the license has language such as Russ identified, also listing copyrights) is valuable, nothing has been said in favour of copyright summarizing. So I wonder what is the best way forward? Should we amend the Policy Manual, striking out "copyright information" from the requirement "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. " ? Thanks, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.