Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I found that surprising; perhaps I have forgotten a lot about > this proposal. So, if I understand this correctly, this proposal is to > come up with some way of creating a standard format for copyrights that > is not meant to be universal (since lacunae that make it unusable for > some packages are not going to be addressed), and not all packages will > ever have a machine readable copyright? I don't think it's fair to say that the format is unusable for some packages. Unless you have examples? It's entirely reasonable to contribute things to Debian without the expectation that all packages will be required to use them. Indeed, this may be the only way to actually advance the state of the art in Debian. > I had hoped that we would try for a format simple enough to be > generally usable (just a header Type: GPL; Subtype: V3) would address a > lot of use cases without being onerous and much more detailed than what > is required now. I don't think that DEP-5 is required to be more detailed. Policy has minimum requirements for what information should be in the copyright file, and it is possible to use DEP-5 to provide only that information, and no more. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature