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 policy). Cheers, gregor -- .''`. 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