Patrick Matthäi <pmatthaei@debian.org> writes: > Christopher Schramm schrieb: > > Patrick Matthäi wrote: > >> - There are much more different copyright holders for different > >> files which are not listed there, try it e.g. with grep -r > >> Copyright *|sort|less > >> - There are also some more missing licenses (GPL3, GPL-2+, GPL-2) > >> in the package which are not mentioned in the debian/copyright file > > > > I see... And the all have to be put in debian/copyright? Isn't that > > going to be a bit bloated? > > Yes, everything has to be in it, look e.g. at the package tork => > debian/copyright, this is the realy hard part of Debian packaging ;-) Note, Christopher, that there is repeated [0] and ongoing [1] heated discussion regarding this very point, and a DEP [2] which concerns it closely. There is vagueness in the Policy and significant disagreement among developers over whether ‘debian/copyright’ actually needs to list all the work's copyright holders and statements. Current practice in many packages leans toward “no”, while actions of (some of?) the ftpmasters leans toward “yes”. I don't know which way this is going to resolve, but it's good to be aware that the position Patrick espouses may or may not represent consensus of the Debian project. [0] <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html> [1] <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2009/03/msg00302.html> [2] DEP 5, <URL:http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/> -- \ “If you ever reach total enlightenment while you're drinking a | `\ beer, I bet it makes beer shoot out your nose.” —Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpgTK6F_LO0X.pgp
Description: PGP signature