Re: [DEP5] Clarification of the minimum required structure

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Hi Steve, Russ, and everybody,

Le Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:05:30AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :

> === modified file 'dep5/copyright-format.xml'
> --- old/dep5/copyright-format.xml	2011-12-12 07:48:31 +0000
> +++ new/dep5/copyright-format.xml	2011-12-12 08:01:32 +0000
> @@ -118,6 +118,12 @@
>        avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields.
>      </para>
>      <para>
> +      The file consists of two or more paragraphs.  At minimum, the file
> +      must include one <link linkend="header-paragraph">header
> +      paragraph</link> and one <link linkend="files-paragraph">Files
> +      paragraph</link>.
> +    </para>
> +    <para>
>        There are four kinds values for fields.  Each field specifies which kind
>        is allowed.
>      </para>
> 

Seconded, see below.

Le Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:51:59AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> 
> During the discussion of allowing Copyright and License fields in the
> header paragraph, one of the things that was raised is the possibility of
> using the DEP-5 format with *just* a header paragraph as a structured way
> of representing the level of detail found in a lot of old-school
> debian/copyright files.  It would let people convert the copyright files
> that just say "here's the copyright and license for upstream" to DEP-5
> without implying that they've actually reviewed each file and confirmed
> they are all covered under that license (and not, say, some compatible
> one).

In my understanding, Copyright and License fields were allowed in the Header
paragraph to let the maintainer provide a summary, or to state collective
copyrights and licenses, but not to replace the Files paragraphs.  This was
discussed in January 2011 in the following thread.

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/01/msg00099.html

There was a related discussion in September 2010, where the decision was
of “getting rid of the optionality of "Files: *"”

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/09/msg00128.html

Unfortunately, I could not find the thread where allowing the Copyright field
in the Header paragraph was discussed, but I think that the conclusion is the
same.

For largest packages it means that it may be difficult to have a Debian
copyright file using the DEP 5 format, but given that its use is optional, I do
not think that it is a limitation, as this format is not designed for cases
where the license of some files is uncertain.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan