Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes: > Ben Finney <[email protected]> writes: > > Both of these seem to imply that copyright notices need to be in > > ‘debian/copyright’, but §12.5 doesn't say that at all. Am I right > > that these assertions in §3.4 and §3.9.1 are false and should be > > removed? > > Well, they're correct that copyright messages shouldn't be in either of > those places. […] > But I suspect that what you're concerned with is the statements that the > copyright file is for copyright statements and that those statements > belong there.
Right, it's the assertions *about the copyright file* that are inconsistent with §12.5, and I believe the ones I presented are false in the light of recent discussions. > Have we reached any consensus otherwise? There's been some discussion, > but I've not seen anything definitive The discussions were rather one-sided, with one side (largely, me) presenting arguments that Policy should require copyright notices to be duplicated in the package copyright file, and all those arguments being countered — IMO, successfuly countered. In other words, I don't see any arguments left standing that Policy should require copyright notices in the package copyright file, and I no longer hold that position. > nor have I seen much analysis of the requirements around retaining > copyright notices that are imposed by some of the DFSG-free licenses. Complying with specific license terms isn't something that should be spelled out in Policy, in my view. Policy should mention in general that license requirements need to be followed, and it should not contradict those requirements, but that's as far as I think it should go. -- \ “Are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, Brain, but | `\ why would anyone want a depressed tongue?” —_Pinky and The | _o__) Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
