[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [DEP5] Asking for common wisdom on new field(s): References*

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>       * I don't think bibliographic references to upstream (or papers
>       describing them) belong in debian/copyright, unless the upstream
>       copyright requires them to be there.

thanks for actually confirming the need ;) and that is what we are
trying often to talk upstream against -- from coming up with custom
home-brewed licenses obligating users to cite... often those are
non-DFSG-free.  If I tell them: "please release under DFSG-free license,
and I will make the reference conveniently available along with the
license", they might take a bite.

>       * Inventing new fields for entirely new things this late in the
>         DEP5 process is a bit unfortunate. I would like to see DEP5

my email was more of "should I drop X-" from References* field, per your
preceeding discussion on the list that finally we do not need X- for
non-standard fields.   I was not trying to persuade you to alter DEP5
;-)  please push it out 

> Sorry to be so negative on your proposal. A generic
> upstream-meatdata.yaml sounds to me like the best solution for sorts of
> things. Some day in the future I would like too see as much
> non-copyright information as possible moved out from debian/copyright to
> upstream-metadata.yaml, but that, too, will be a separate discussion.

I am still digesting upstream-metadata.yaml ;-)

Keep in touch                                     www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko                 www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic

Reply to: