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

Re: SVN texlive (2012) commit: r5614 - texlive2012/texlive-bin/trunk/debian

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> writes:

> On Di, 17 Jul 2012, Frank Küster wrote:
>>    texlive2012/texlive-bin/trunk/debian/copyright.dep-5
> 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
> projects.

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
project thinks.

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.

Regards, Frank

Reply to: