retitle 65557 [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution thanks stop
Hi. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, at "Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:39:37 -0400", Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony Towns <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ditto; leaving it in copyright also makes it easy to remember to change > > it if the license becomes more free in the future: you're just editing the > > one file. > > Actually, I had never thought of it that way, but it is true. I have had > a package go from non-free to free, and this makes sense. Good point! I admit this is a good point. And I have read the mail from Josip Rodin who agrees with you. Obviously, you have got more point than I did. So I amend my proposal to use copyright file, not README.Debian. Here is the updated patch for sgml. === the proposed patch on sgml for this modification === --- policy.sgml.orig Tue Jun 13 10:00:17 2000 +++ policy.sgml.proposed Tue Jun 13 10:05:22 2000 @@ -189,6 +189,12 @@ provide infrastructure for them (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists). This Debian Policy Manual applies to these packages as well.</p> + <p> + In order to avoid to be misconstrued, All the packages in + the other sections than <em>main</em> should have notice + in <tt>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</tt> + and should explain the specific reason why the package does + not form the <em>Debian GNU/Linux distribution</em>. </p> <sect id="pkgcopyright"> <heading>Package copyright and sections</heading> Do you think that "All the packages in the other sections" should be also modified to "All the packages in non-free or contrib sections" ? And more, do you think that the entire sentences should be modified into In order to avoid to be misconstrued, it is encouraged to add a paragraph which explain the specific reason why the package does not form the <em>Debian GNU/Linux distribution</em> officially for all the packages in non-free or contrib section. This explanatory paragraph can be a summary of incompatibility of the license (with quotes of some words from the license) or unmet dependencies (with the name of required materials). What I wish to see is more explanation for users. Many ordinary users are not specialists in license. In many cases, they may not understand the meaning of a license correctly when they are just told "read the license by yourself". We can explain what is the problem briefly for them, I hope. Thanks. -- Taketoshi Sano: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
