Hi Osamu, Quoting Osamu Aoki (2014-09-08 17:38:41) > DEP-5 as defined in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ does not have any > clause allowing us to skip license entries for certain class of files. I believe the "problem" is not DEP-5 but Debian Policy. One of the goals of DEP-5 was to only be about syntax - its strict format simply reveals what is the case also without DEP-5: "permission to skip license for certain class of files" is not allowed by Debian Policy §3.2: > Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright > information and distribution license in the file > `/usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright' If you somehow read above as magically excluding copyrightprotected material with very permissive licensing and/or easy to regenerate, then you should be able to read DEP-5 equally sloppy. ;-) > In practice, many packages lack entries for autotools generated files > which come with very permissive license with mostly identical but not > quite the same copyright phrases which reqire us to quote them > separately. Right, and that's a (mild only, evidently) violation of Policy. I have heard the argument that the code is not important, because it can be automatically regenerated. In my opinion we should cover all code that we ship. If upstream tarball is too bloated, then strip parts not actually needed...: * autotools-generated files * documentation * compacted Javascript and CSS files * convenience code copies - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature