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

Re: DEP-5: Clarifying copyright/license requirements

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:30:48 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Confusing or not, I think this really needs to be addressed.  It's *the*
> problem that people are running into in evaluating the format, and there
> is a ton of negative discussion of DEP-5 out there based on the idea that
> it's so much harder than the existing copyright format because of
> additional required information.  This appears to be what people are
> talking about.

Yup, maybe a disclaimer would help to get over these concerns.
> Maybe the easiest way through this impasse is to just say explicitly in
> DEP-5 that only the license and copyright information required by the
> Debian archive policy is required here, and that while the format *allows*
> more information to be provided if one desires, it does not *require* any
> of that.  This is probably going to require special language around the
> case of a Files: * stanza.

I'd rather add a disclaimer/preface at the beginning that says in BIG
FRIENDLY LETTERS that DEP5 is only about formatting and doesn't
change any requirements (which are [or should be] spelt out in
 .''`.  Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer  -  http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Roy Orbison

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: