On 01/12/2012 12:17, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:47:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > >> Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : >>> >>> P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for >>> the upstream files, but "(c) 1996-2012 by Thomas A. McGlynn" does not >>> look right, as long as the upstream work is really in the public domain >>> (which, as you probably know, means that the work is *not* subject to >>> copyright!)... >>> The machine-readable debian/copyright file format specification v1.0 >>> (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/) >>> is not too clear on this point, unfortunately... >>> Maybe you should ask on the debian-policy mailing list and suggest that >>> this topic should be clarified in the specification. >> >> Hi Francesco, > > Hi Charles! > >> >> the 1.0 specification mentions for the Copyright field: >> >> If a work has no copyright holder (i.e., it is in the public domain), that >> information should be recorded here. > > Yes, I had read that, but it didn't seem too clear to me. > > Since one of the "standard short names" for the License field is > "public-domain", I thought that specifying > > Copyright: public-domain > License: public-domain > [explanation of why the files are in the public domain...] > > was awkward and redundant. > > Hence, I wondered what should be put in the Copyright field when the > License field says "public-domain"... > >> >> Inspecting Debian copyright files from >> svn://anonscm.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ I see that many chose >> contents such as "none", "nobody", "public-domain", "not relevant", etc, which >> I think are good enough, given that the content of the Copyright field is >> free-form. > > OK, so maybe > > Copyright: none > License: public-domain > [explanation of why the files are in the public domain...] > > is the way to go. > > I just wish that the 1.0 specification were more explicit on this > point... I thought "public-domain" wasn't DFSG (because it's not in some countries). Is this package targeted at non-free ? Jérémy.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature