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

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:50:37AM +0100, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:39:14 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> > I can't recall an ftpmaster *ever* giving their position on this in
> > answer to the questions raised over on debian-devel, and I'd love to be
> > shown where your certainty comes from.
> 
> As long as there is no other statement I consider it safe to assume
> that the older statements are still valid:
> 
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html and (linked from there)
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html

Hi Gregor,

the problem is that these instructions are vague, because there is one layer of
common sense applied on the top of them.

See for example:

  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.

This is not accurate. For instance, is tolerated to not list the license and
copyright notices of the autotools build scripts. I welcome this exception and
others, but in addition I think that it would be crucial have them documented.
(Or the whole instructions changed, as I propose on debian-vote).

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan