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: