On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:30:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > problem that people are running into in evaluating the format, and there > is a ton of negative discussion of DEP-5 out there based on the idea that > it's so much harder than the existing copyright format because of > additional required information. This appears to be what people are > talking about. It was certainly my objection to the format when we were first formulating the DEP. It was cleared up on-list but obviously we don't want to continuously be doing that.
> Maybe the easiest way through this impasse is to just say explicitly in > DEP-5 that only the license and copyright information required by the > Debian archive policy is required here, and that while the format *allows* > more information to be provided if one desires, it does not *require* any > of that. This is probably going to require special language around the > case of a Files: * stanza. Something as clear as that would be helpful. I think some of the "problem" is that it is a bit like the y2k bug side-effect which found other bugs. Absolutely nothing to do with y2k but because everyone had to look and examine old code, other bugs were found. Similiarly, becaue DEP-5 means re-looking at the copyright and license situation, it might fix those sorts of bugs. This is actually a good thing! - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
