Am 16.12.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Sean Whitton: > Hello Markus, > > On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > >>> This would mean that we are not explicitly stating in our d/copyright >>> file the difference between GPL-2 and GPL-2+. To learn of the >>> difference, a user would need to view the full spec of the copyright >>> format. >> >> IMO this is already the case. What we do right now and what is >> accepted by the ftp-master is, that we write for GPL-2 and GPL-2+ in >> one package: >> >> License: GPL-2 >> On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in >> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 >> >> >> License: GPL-2+ >> On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in >> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 > > I am surprised to hear that this is accepted by ftp-master. Would you > mind pointing to an example package? ufoai-data. > ISTM that the text must explain what the '+' means to be acceptable, but > I am not an ftp-master. In my opinion this is uncontroversial because the official copyright format 1.0 documentation makes use of the same conventions. https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ If you feel that it should be better explained then I suggest that we improve the documentation of copyright format 1.0. >> I don't think it is a burden to take a look at the copyright format >> 1.0 specification. > > It requires Internet access, though. I think it is fair to assume that the vast majority of our users have internet access in 2017. > One of the reasons we ship > uncompressed d/copyright with every binary package is so that the > copyright information is available offline; if we're not explaining what > the '+' means, that's no longer true. That's what I mean by a > regression. Simple solution: Install a copy of copyright format 1.0 into base-files or another essential package, document best practices and point to this document on the local system. >> If the Policy editors cannot make a decision with regards to >> debian/copyright then we should ask the DPL to seek legal advice and >> when necessary start a GR for reasons of legitimacy. > > If we think this issue is important enough to spend money on that. I am > not convinced it is. Then we need a GR. Simply claiming that something violates the law without proof cannot be the right way for a large project like Debian. This is a very important topic because writing debian/copyright is not optional in Debian. I simply believe that most people appreciate doing something meaningful in their free time. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature