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.
However:
> 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.
smcv
Reply to: