On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:10:23PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:11:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > The current practice is that verbatim is not a clearly defined term and > > people are using a common-sense, and imprecise, definition. > Then let's face the complex reality and document what you described in the > Policy. What is sure is that the practice does not enforce “verbatim” > stricto-sensu. We could write ‘copyright notices must be reproduced in > debian/copyright; they can be agregated to a degree that is left to the > appreciation of the archive administrators’. The patch that has been submitted to Policy is to eliminate a single ambiguity in the wording that permits a particular twisted interpretation of the phrase "verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license" which is historically incorrect. I believe this is orthogonal to any question of what the policy *should* be, or whether the enforcement of this rule has been strict and consistent. Do you disagree with my assertion that this is what the current Policy text *means* (has always meant)? > Anyway, I think that I have taken my decision and will propose a GR later. We > wasted already too much time on this issue. Not everybody has the same common > sense, so we need clear guidelines. Why do you think this should be clarified by a GR, rather than through the Policy process? Except where it intersects with the legal requirements of licenses, the contents of debian/copyright are, AFAICS, a technical policy that don't require ratification by the project. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature