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

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

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

Reply to: