Bug#65577: Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution
retitle 65557 [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution
at "Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:39:37 -0400",
Brian Mays <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Anthony Towns <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Ditto; leaving it in copyright also makes it easy to remember to change
> > it if the license becomes more free in the future: you're just editing the
> > one file.
> Actually, I had never thought of it that way, but it is true. I have had
> a package go from non-free to free, and this makes sense. Good point!
I admit this is a good point. And I have read the mail from Josip Rodin
who agrees with you. Obviously, you have got more point than I did.
So I amend my proposal to use copyright file, not README.Debian.
Here is the updated patch for sgml.
=== the proposed patch on sgml for this modification ===
--- policy.sgml.orig Tue Jun 13 10:00:17 2000
+++ policy.sgml.proposed Tue Jun 13 10:05:22 2000
@@ -189,6 +189,12 @@
provide infrastructure for them (such as our bug-tracking
system and mailing lists). This Debian Policy Manual applies
to these packages as well.</p>
+ In order to avoid to be misconstrued, All the packages in
+ the other sections than <em>main</em> should have notice
+ in <tt>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</tt>
+ and should explain the specific reason why the package does
+ not form the <em>Debian GNU/Linux distribution</em>. </p>
<heading>Package copyright and sections</heading>
Do you think that "All the packages in the other sections" should be
also modified to "All the packages in non-free or contrib sections" ?
And more, do you think that the entire sentences should be modified
In order to avoid to be misconstrued, it is encouraged to add a
paragraph which explain the specific reason why the package does
not form the <em>Debian GNU/Linux distribution</em> officially
for all the packages in non-free or contrib section.
This explanatory paragraph can be a summary of incompatibility
of the license (with quotes of some words from the license) or
unmet dependencies (with the name of required materials).
What I wish to see is more explanation for users. Many ordinary users
are not specialists in license. In many cases, they may not understand
the meaning of a license correctly when they are just told "read the
license by yourself". We can explain what is the problem briefly for
them, I hope.
Taketoshi Sano: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>