[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: length of Debian copyright files

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 11:29:22 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> You seem to conflate two issues:
>  a) writing debian/copyright in a machine-parsable format
>  b) writing debian/copyright with too much detail included
> Please use the machine-readable format because then machines can help 
> us. If you find it insane how detailed machine-readable format _can_ be, 
> then please use the format _without_ the insanity.

I agree with this part: the machine-readable format should just be an
alternative encoding for whatever you would say (with whatever high or
low level of detail you are using) in a plain-text copyright file.


> Files: *
> Copyright: The GTK Team and others
> License: LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+
> Comment:
>  Specific authors omitted (unneeded for this license, and list is long).

My understanding is that the ftp team would consider this to be a bug,
and possibly a RC one, because:

- the permissive licenses have been omitted (it should say
  "LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+ and Expat and (Expat or unlicense) and ...");

- not all of the copyright notices that exist in the source code have
  been copied into the copyright file

I would be delighted to be told I'm wrong about that by someone who
speaks for the ftp team, but I'm reluctant to get software that I want
in Debian kicked out of Debian by using its acceptance or rejection as
an oracle to discover the ftp team's policy.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=956286 was opened at
RC severity two days ago, saying that folks' copyright file is RC-buggy
precisely because it does not replicate a list of copyright statements
from the source code.


Reply to: