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

Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify "verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license"

"Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:16:29AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > There is an additional factor here. Reportedly, the ftpmasters have
> > a policy that all Debian packages must have all copyright notices
> > for the package duplicated in the package's ???copyright??? file.
> Agreed, the ftpmasters have a larger role than most of us in
> interpreting this policy.

By “the ftpmasters have a policy” I'm referring not to Debian's
packaging policy document, but specifically to a *distinct* policy that
the ftpmasters have expressed for how packages are accepted or rejected
for Debian.

That it's not called a policy doesn't stop it from being one. See
<URL:http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html>, which in regard to
this current discussion links to a 2006 message from an FTP Master:

    Your debian/copyright file must contain the following information:

     - The author(s) name
     - The year(s) of the copyright
     - The used license(s)
     - The URL to the upstream source

    In many packages there is more than one author, more than one
    copyright-holder and more than one license. Do not miss to list them
    all, even if that other license is just for one file. Yes, any single
    file is important.


As you noted, that is an aspect of expressed FTP Master policy that is
in contradiction to the current practice of the Debian project. The
question I'm raising is which should we describe in the Debian policy
document: current consensus practice, or FTP Master edict?

 \            “It's not what you pay a man, but what he costs you that |
  `\                                             counts.” —Will Rogers |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

Reply to: