Jonathan Yu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Russ Allbery<[email protected]> wrote:
Jonathan Yu <[email protected]> writes:
Indeed, I am aware that there is no official Policy decision on
copyright formats yet. Right now we're using
http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=196
and waiting to see what comes out of DEP5. (I should have sent this to
debian-devel instead, but I couldn't remember if DEP5 was using this
list or debian-devel for their discussion)
The question was previously raised on debian-devel I think about what to
do with this case from a DEP5 perspective. I personally have no idea.
I don't think a DEP5 copyright file provides a very good structure for
talking about this sort of distribution.
Unfortunately I think for now we're just going to do away with the
problem by re-packing the module without those files (some other
tarballs had to be removed because they didn't carry appropriate
license & copyright information).
I'm not sure if I was the person that previously brought up such a
discussion on debian-devel; there is a good chance I participated in
that discussion. I'll have to look through the archives.
I think this is a no problem. AFAIK the new dpkg-source format (the v3)
solve most of the problem which needed the hack "archives into archives".
Legally (but IANAL) it is the same of a files with multiple licenses
(not dual license, but some part are licensed with one license and the
other with an other license), which is already solved by DEP5.
So IMO: let fix the common case, and later the corner case.
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
