[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
thanks
stop

Hi.

In <20000617063937.8774ADF7B@ariel.local.net>,
 at "Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:39:37 -0400",
  Brian Mays <brian@debian.org> writes:

> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> 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>
+      <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>
 
       <sect id="pkgcopyright">
 	<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
into

   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.

Thanks.
-- 
  Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>



Reply to: