On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:47:18AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13 2010, Mark Brown wrote:On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:> What are these benefits?The major important bits are that people who are basing distributions on Debian or are using Debian in the enterprise or embedded environments can more easily determine the set of licences that they need to audit for compliance purposes and due dilligence. Debian will also know better what licences we are distributing in main, and can possibly track issues where we are unable to ship specific derivative works.In order to truly deliver on this we'd need the entire distro to be converted to DEP5 format but elsewhere in the thread it was stated that this is not a goal.Also, this goal only requires one to list the licenses under which the package sources are delivered, but need not say anything about which _files_ are under which license (and currently, there is no requirement to list any source files in copyright either, so listing the files is an additional requirement).
Goal of DEP5 is *not* to tighten requirements of what to document, only to tighten *how* it is documented.
Personally I like the "pain" put upon myself of keeping track of each single file that I distribute.
But really If you believe it is enough to state in debian/control that the work is GPLv2, then that is just as possible using DEB5, with the following statement:
Copyright: John Doe License: GPL-2 Verbatim license from source bla bla with reference to common-licenses - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature