Re: debian/copyright and Files-Within-Files

["Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>]

Jonathan Yu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Russ Allbery<rra@debian.org> wrote:
> > Jonathan Yu <jonathan.i.yu@gmail.com> writes:

> Indeed, I am aware that there is no official Policy decision on
> copyright formats yet. Right now we're using
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=196
> and waiting to see what comes out of DEP5. (I should have sent this to
> debian-devel instead, but I couldn't remember if DEP5 was using this
> list or debian-devel for their discussion)
> > The question was previously raised on debian-devel I think about what to
> > do with this case from a DEP5 perspective.  I personally have no idea.
> > I don't think a DEP5 copyright file provides a very good structure for
> > talking about this sort of distribution.
>
> Unfortunately I think for now we're just going to do away with the
> problem by re-packing the module without those files (some other
> tarballs had to be removed because they didn't carry appropriate
> license & copyright information).
>
> I'm not sure if I was the person that previously brought up such a
> discussion on debian-devel; there is a good chance I participated in
> that discussion. I'll have to look through the archives.

I think this is a no problem. AFAIK the new dpkg-source format (the v3)
solve most of the problem which needed the hack "archives into archives".

Legally (but IANAL) it is the same of a files with multiple licenses
(not dual license, but some part are licensed with one license and the
other with an other license), which is already solved by DEP5.
So IMO: let fix the common case, and later the corner case.

ciao
	cate