Hi Charles, thanks for your feedback! Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 09:47 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: > - Why is 'Priority: extra' preferred over optional? What are the > expected benefits? This is one of the things I thought to be "common practice" in several team. I never really got the need for differing between "extra" and "optional", so I can't argue about them. I would also be fine with setting all to "optional". > - It could be useful to request that the fields in debian/control are > always used in the same order, to help repository-wide changes. I do not have strong feelings about that. > - The match order in the machine-readable copyright format has been > reversed compared to the original proposal. Therefore, your example > is slightly outdated. Thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that! I also found a problem in an other example, so I'll update those. > - For the license of the packaging work, I recommend to require that > its license is not more restrictive than the original source, so that > patches do not cause problems when forwarded upstream. I think this makes perfect sense. I is what I intended with the wording but it was not clear. As you pointed out in the thread, GPL patches "contaminate" a BSD upstream. This should indeed be avoided. > > 1. What license should we use for the document? > > Unless you have concerns that the document can be forked and > close-sourced, using GPL is probably too much and will open the > possibility of arguments at the GPLv4 transition :) I'm fine with it not being GPL. I think that very few people will be interested in forking it anyway. PD or some free CC would be fine with me. Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil