Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification
Le Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 04:41:28PM +0000, Ximin Luo a écrit :
>
> Is there somewhere else you guys are discussing this? Some other mailing list,
> or an IRC channel?
Dear Ximin,
in practice, discussions take place where they started, that is usually
debian-project@, debian-devel@, debian-policy@ and debian-mentors@. Important
points are CCed to debian-project@, since it is the list where it was decided
originally that discussion should happen. For IRC, I do not know as I never
connect there.
After the 1.0 release, discussion will follow the Policy process, so the
discussions will take place on that list through the bug records. Of course,
it is good to seek comments on debian-devel@ or debian-projects@ when proposing
changes that would affect a large number of developers or packages.
I recommend you to make sure that each patch you send is focused on one and
only one proposition. Reformatting, movements of paragraphs, etc. can be done
after agreeing on the key changes. In my understanding, the key changes in
your patch are the following.
> + <para>
> + Description text (License paragraphs): gives the licensing terms for
> + those paragraphs which reference it. (Other extra-license information,
> + which is software- or author-specific, should instead be given in the
> + appropriate Files paragraph, either in the License or Comment fields.
> + For example, the MPL-1.1 requirement to state the initial developers of
> + a particular piece of software, or any copyright notices explicitly
> + mentioning authorship.
> + </para>
> + <para>
> + It is recommended that standalone License paragraphs only reference
> + irreducible <link linkend="license-short-name">short names</link> of
> + published licenses, e.g. GPL-2 rather than GPL-2+, since this allows
> + maximum re-use. This is currently not enforced, but may be in a later
> + version of this specification.
> </para>
I think that they are too disruptive to be integrated before releasing version 1.0.
1) With the current DEP, it is possible to have software- or author-specific
information in the standalone License paragraphs, and I do not want to send
signals that maintainers should change this in their Debian copyright files as
a best practice for version 1.0.
2) Using a standalone License paragraph for representing two different
redistribution terms is not currently supported. Regardless my personnal
opinion on that feature, such a normative change can not be done be done in the
last minute, and I really hope to mark the DEP accepted next week. Also, I do
not want the current text to speculate on the contents of the next versions in
the absence of a clear consensus that a change will be applied.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: