Bug#955005: Relax requirements to copy copyright notices into d/copyright

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 17:18:27 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 08 Apr 2020 at 01:18AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> +The copyright information for files in a package must be copied
> >> +verbatim into ``/usr/share/doc/package/copyright``, when
> >                                   ^ Shouldn't this and other instances
> > of "package" be marked as replaceable text?
> 
> Possibly, though that's an issue with the existing Policy text not this
> patch -- perhaps I should just find and replace after applying the patch
> from this bug?

Ah right, thought this was specific to this drafting. Sounds good.

> > I'm assuming the entire list is supposed to hold at the same time? If
> > so perhaps adding an «and» here would make this completely unambiguous.
> 
> Hmm, thanks for the feedback, but I don't think "a; b; and c" is
> ambiguous in English, and "a; and b; and c" would be an irregular usage.

I guess what I found ambiguous is that "; and" in English does not
necessarily have a logic connotation. So one can read it as "item a;
item b; and item c" where the and is just there to introduce the next
item instead of specifying the content is ANDed. The “when” should
make it somewhat clear, but on a quick read it just made me doubt.

Take the example list in ch-source.rst
“Main building script: ``debian/rules``”:

  ,---
  There are sometimes good reasons to use a different approach.  For
  example, the standard tools for packaging software written in some
  languages may use another tool; some rarer packaging patterns, such as
  multiple builds of the same software with different options, are easier to
  express with other tools; and a packager working on a different packaging
  helper might want to use their tool.
  `---

Which I'd take it as an “and” for the list, not for its contents holding
true at the same time. :)

With the context I guess it is somewhat clearish, but I'd really like
to see text that is completely unambiguous for stuff that is normative.

> If this really does need clarification it would be better to add "all of
> the following" or something before the list.

Yes, clarifying before the list starts would work too, and I thought I
mentioned it in my reply, but apparently not.

Thanks,
Guillem