Bug#65764: changelog shouldn't be in the copyright file
Brian Mays wrote:
> > As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the README.Debian file is
> > best reserved for changes in the *behavior* of the package, not in
> > the changes to the source tree.
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org> added:
> Assuming you're referring to this from Josip:
>
> > A more general description of the important stuff that's changed in
> > the behavior of the program in the package can/should still be found
> > in README.Debian file.
>
> ... I don't see how this argues that it's "best reserved" for behavior
> changes, it seems the logical place to look for all kinds of "what's
> special about the Debian package" kind of info.
Yes, but it should be general information of this type. I think that a
detailed list of changes to the upstream source does not fit in here.
When I see "README.Debian", I immediately assume that this is where the
maintainer has included information such as warnings about unusual ways
that the program has been built for Debian or how the Debian package
might differ from the way other distributions (perhaps even the upstream
developers) build and package this software. I don't expect to see
details about changes to the source. Furthermore, unless the Debian
package is really "special" and the Debian package differs significantly
from similar packages distributed from other sources, I don't see the
need for a README.Debian file at all.
> On the other hand, the logical connection between changes and a file
> called "copyright" is completely lost on me (other than the "that's
> where we say it is" connection, of course.)
I'll admit that it doesn't make sense at first glance. I'll try,
however, to make an ad hoc argument.
The copyright file is where we list the copyrights placed on the
software, i.e., who owns the software, as the name of the file suggests.
Since we are redistributing copywritten material, we need permission
from the copyright holder to do so. Therefore, this permission (the
license) is also included in this file.
But wait. That is not all. We are not redistributing the copywritten
material exactly as we received it. The software has been modified in
some way. (At the very least, we have added files to the source tree.)
Therefore, we also need permission to distribute a modified version
of the software. Fortunately, this is also covered by the license
information that we have included. With this in mind, however, since we
are distributing a modified version of someone else's work, I think it
is prudent to also include a summary of our modifications. Furthermore,
I think that it makes sense to keep this list of modifications with the
information on the licensing agreement that allows us to make these
modifications.
Therefore, in summary, the copyright file contains the following
information:
(1) who owns the software,
(2) the modifications that we have made to the upstream version of the
software that we are distributing, and
(3) the conditions by which a modified version of the software may be
distributed.
These three things seem to go well together. In fact, the more that I
think about it, the more convinced I become that Ian Murdock and the
early Debian developers got it right, and the format of the copyright
file makes good sense.
> > > One of the problems with putting it in the copyright file is that
> > > for packages that don't use one of the common licenses, you have
> > > to modify the upstream copyright file, which feels like a bad
> > > thing to me.
> >
> > Huh? I don't understand this.
>
> The copyright/license statement of the upstream author is legal
> document (or at least we tend to treat it as such, IANAL). Modifying
> that document seems like a bad idea, even though our modifications are
> actually additions. Modifying it to add irrelevant information that
> could easily be placed in a more logical location seems especially so.
Hmm ... none of the copyright files in my packages are direct copies of
a copyright/license statement file. If fact, several of the upstream
sources for my packages don't contain such a file at all. In these
packages, the copyright and license statement are often buried in the
code, as a long comment. Then, I have to extract this information from
the source file, and copy it into the copyright file. Refraining from
modifying the document (as you are using this term) is not an option
here, unless I want to copy the source file and rename it "copyright".
When the license is indeed included in the copyright file (for a
nonstandard license), it forms an additional section at the end of the
file, a section in which the license has been copied verbatim into the
file. We are not modifying the document at all. At least, we are not
modifying the content of the document. I don't really think that, just
because the document no longer occupies its own file, we have modified
the document in a significant way.
- Brian
Reply to: