Quoting Sean Whitton (2019-12-28 15:35:50) > On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 08:21am -05, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Oh, wow. I've been doing this wrong all along. I am not sure how I > > developed the impression that it was necessary to distinguish > > different copyright holders (even same copyright holders with > > different copyright years), but your approach is most certainly > > simpler and more compact. > > Right. This is the sort of overdocumentation that I worry our > machine-readable copyright format implicitly encourages us to do. I worry that *not* using machine-readable copyright format implicitly encourages us to document only _project-wide_ licensing - e.g. what some upstreams write in a top-level LICENSE or COPYRIGHT file or in some metadata file - without checking licensing of each and every _file_ which we *must* do (machine-readable or not). ftp-masters check all files, which I guess is slower when only they do so. ...which is the topic of this discussion! Both you and I worry about subjective implicit encouragements, however - not about the actual demands of machine-readable format. The definition of machine-readable format includes this: > Nothing in this proposal supersedes or modifies any of the > requirements specified in Debian Policy regarding the appropriate > detail or granularity to use when documenting copyright and lice> nse > status in debian/copyright. In other words, debian/copyright need *same* amount of detail, regardless of the file being machine-readable or not! machine-readable format does *not* require more detail. - 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