Re: SVN texlive (2012) commit: r5614 - texlive2012/texlive-bin/trunk/debian
Norbert Preining <email@example.com> writes:
> On Di, 17 Jul 2012, Frank Küster wrote:
> I am not sure if a DEP5 copyright file is what I want to see, I am
> not at all convinced that this proposal is a good idea for large
I was aware of your objections, although I didn't recall the
reasons. Therefore I first tried a free-form copyright file. However, I
found that I had to invent a kind of syntax, anyway, although only
aiming at human-readability.
This was when I switched to DEP-5
> It is just one more step of license zealots to make life harder.
I don't agree to this statement. In terms of what you should document
in debian/copyright, DEP-5 just phrases very clearly (because it's
machine-readable and therefore with little grey) what a majority of the
I will ignore autotools-generated files, of course, and other
non-copyrightable stuff like README files with no substantial content.
But the fact that we need a copyright statement for every file (even
DEP-5 does allow to merge files with the same copyright holders, but
different years) and a license statement has nothing to do with DEP-5.
If you have a different proposal, I'm open.