Bug#65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution
- To: 65577@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:04:11 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 874pblrf44.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- Reply-to: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 65577@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <87ejd1j84u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Tue\, 01 Jan 2008 18\:04\:01 -0800")
- References: <20000617144343.A12713@azure.humbug.org.au> <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> <20000617063937.8774ADF7B@ariel.local.net> <20000621192454I.kgh12351@kgh12351.nifty.ne.jp> <87ejd1j84u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Below is a revised patch that puts the text into section 12.5 instead of
> here and simplifies the language a little. I think the major open
> question is how to handle the fact that it makes contrib and non-free
> packages instabuggy; this is a real chicken and egg sort of thing. I
> can see a few options:
>
> * Live with the instabuggy problem at the should level.
>
> * Say that packages may include this information (entirely optional),
> possibly with a footnote that says this may be upgraded in the future.
> This is somewhat unsatisfying since it doesn't say anything that isn't
> already true -- people already can put this in copyright -- but it
> avoids the problem of making existing packages buggy while still
> providing some documentation somewhere that this is a good idea.
>
> * Punt to the Debian Developer's Reference and suggest it be put it there
> first, and only revisit Policy if in the future it seems useful to put
> it here.
>
> Preferences? Comments? And if you agree with the first option, seconds?
I have gotten no further feedback on this proposal other than some
questions about whether contrib and non-free are subject to Policy (they
are, according to Policy). I would like to resolve this bug for the next
Policy release, but I don't want to just commit patches on my own say-so.
Could those reading the Policy list please review this patch and and
either second or indicate a preference for a different option so that we
can resolve this and close this bug?
Thanks!
> --- orig/policy.sgml
> +++ mod/policy.sgml
> @@ -8675,7 +8675,14 @@
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> sources (if any) were obtained. It should name the original
> authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> - involved with its creation.</p>
> + involved with its creation.
> + </p>
> +
> + <p>
> + Packages in the <em>contrib</em> or <em>non-free</em> categories
> + should state in the copyright file that the package is not part
> + of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and briefly explain why.
> + </p>
>
> <p>
> A copy of the file which will be installed in
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: