Hello, On Tue 30 Oct 2018 at 09:34PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Somewhat recently there has been significant discussion within the project > regarding the necessity of documenting copyright attribution in > debian/copyright. The FTP team has reviewed the situation and takes the > following position: [...] Thank you for working on this. > 4. The FTP team believes that documenting copyright holders in > debian/copyright is a good idea. If policy were modified to make it along the > lines of SHALL if the license does not explicitly allow it to be left out of > binary distributions and SHOULD in all other cases, the FTP team believes this > would be a good change make maintainer's efforts easier when a package license > allows for it. We don't use the term 'shall' in Policy. We have 'must', 'should' and 'may' (see Policy 1.1). I assume you mean the RFC2119 meaning of 'shall', which is equivalent to 'must'? -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature