Re: DEP-5: Clarifying copyright/license requirements
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:30:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.
It was certainly my objection to the format when we were first
formulating the DEP. It was cleared up on-list but obviously we don't
want to continuously be doing that.
> 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.
Something as clear as that would be helpful.
I think some of the "problem" is that it is a bit like the y2k bug
side-effect which found other bugs. Absolutely nothing to do with y2k
but because everyone had to look and examine old code, other bugs were
Similiarly, becaue DEP-5 means re-looking at the copyright and license
situation, it might fix those sorts of bugs. This is actually a good
Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5