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

Re: DEP-5 (copyright file format) ... gap with practice

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

Reply to: