control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello Markus, On Sat, Dec 16 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: >> I am surprised to hear that this is accepted by ftp-master. Would >> you mind pointing to an example package? > > ufoai-data. Thanks. >> 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. Good suggestion. If we installed the copyright format onto all Debian systems, and replaced the contents of the Format: field with a reference to that file, the concerns I've raised about your proposal would be fully addressed. I think that we would need to bump the version number of the copyright format (to 1.1, say). That new version would require the Format: field to refer to the file installed locally. That way, any (valid) copyright file using the new "[GPL-3+]" notation would include a reference to a locally-installed file explaining the shorthand. (If we didn't bump the version number, either (i) the reference to the locally-installed file need not be present in the Format: field, and the concerns I've raised would not be addressed; or (ii) format 1.0 would require the reference to the locally-installed file and then we invalidate all the other copyright files currently in Debian.) The above is written as just another DD. Now, with my Policy Editor hat on: we can't commit a change like this without the FTP masters explicitly approving the "[GPL-3+]" notation. It is not obvious to me that this adequately documents the license of the package, and in Debian, the FTP masters make the call about how to adequately document such things. We can't put something into Policy that they do not consider adequate. It is not our call. I am tagging this bug as moreinfo. This indicates that we need a FTP master to weigh in, and the bug is blocked by that. For debian-policy, bugs that remain tagged moreinfo for 30 days, without the required info being provided, are closed. The idea is that this bug doesn't sit here for months when it is blocked by action the Policy Editors are not able to take. What I suggest is that you write a summary of the current proposal addressed to the FTP masters -- your original proposal plus mine, if you agree with what I've written in this e-mail -- CCing this bug and saying that the proposal is blocked because it needs their input. Thanks! -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature