Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Debian Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/)
-   -   Bug#566220: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package? (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/313730-bug-566220-what-criteria-does-ftpmaster-use-copyrighta-file-package.html)

Charles Plessy 01-23-2010 03:10 AM

Bug#566220: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?
 
Le Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:11:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :

> The current practice is that verbatim is not a clearly defined term and
> people are using a common-sense, and imprecise, definition.

Then let's face the complex reality and document what you described in the
Policy. What is sure is that the practice does not enforce “verbatim”
stricto-sensu. We could write ‘copyright notices must be reproduced in
debian/copyright; they can be agregated to a degree that is left to the
appreciation of the archive administrators’.

Anyway, I think that I have taken my decision and will propose a GR later. We
wasted already too much time on this issue. Not everybody has the same common
sense, so we need clear guidelines.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Steve Langasek 01-23-2010 03:38 AM

Bug#566220: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?
 
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:10:23PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:11:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :

> > The current practice is that verbatim is not a clearly defined term and
> > people are using a common-sense, and imprecise, definition.

> Then let's face the complex reality and document what you described in the
> Policy. What is sure is that the practice does not enforce “verbatim”
> stricto-sensu. We could write ‘copyright notices must be reproduced in
> debian/copyright; they can be agregated to a degree that is left to the
> appreciation of the archive administrators’.

The patch that has been submitted to Policy is to eliminate a single
ambiguity in the wording that permits a particular twisted interpretation of
the phrase "verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license" which
is historically incorrect. I believe this is orthogonal to any question of
what the policy *should* be, or whether the enforcement of this rule has
been strict and consistent.

Do you disagree with my assertion that this is what the current Policy text
*means* (has always meant)?

> Anyway, I think that I have taken my decision and will propose a GR later. We
> wasted already too much time on this issue. Not everybody has the same common
> sense, so we need clear guidelines.

Why do you think this should be clarified by a GR, rather than through the
Policy process? Except where it intersects with the legal requirements of
licenses, the contents of debian/copyright are, AFAICS, a technical policy
that don't require ratification by the project.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.