On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I would suggest a file with fields like the control files, something
> like (comments with #'s):
> Package: foo
> Debianized-By: Debian Maintainer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Debianized-When: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:09:09 +0100 # output of 822-date
> Copyright: GPL
The GPL isn't a copyright, it's a license. We need to list the
copyright holder as *well* as the license. If we were to do this
(which I'm not sure is a good idea), we should at least name the
fields sensibly:
Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
License: GPL
License-details: see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> Copyright-non-freeness: # Brief details of non-freeness here
Again, "License-non-freeness:".
The last time a similar suggestion was made, it was pointed out that
a) there can be a lot of ways that packages can violate the DFSG
b) we're not in the business of supporting non-free.
The idea of listing the reasons for non-freeness was rejected as being
too much work for stuff we don't care about. I'd add, on top of that,
that rewriting 6000 copyright files (for main+contrib+non-free) is a
HUGE amount of work. I don't think the reasons I've seen posted here
are sufficient to justify the amount of work required.
I'm not opposing the idea, just raising some quibbles and doubts.
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
