* Manuel Prinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080528 00:34]: > git clone git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/policy.git
> Besides the points mentioned in the document, the following points have to be > addressed: > > 1. What license should we use for the document? Is there so much in the worth protectable? Otherwise making it public domain or basically public domain looks also like a choice to consider. Suggestions about the draft: | The <ulink url="http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat"> | machine-readable format</ulink> must be used. That format has still quite a bit of "yet to be discussed" in it. It also has still quite some shortcoming with complicated distribution about Copyright owners. That about a ", as long as expressable this way." added to this? | The <varname>DM-Upload-Allowed</varname> should be included and set to | "yes". I do not think adding this field as along as there are no Uploaders is that sensible. I'd rather suggest some rule that this field should not be removed without the consents of the "Uploaders" or something like that. (Because I definitly will not sponsor/upload any package with this header set unless the header and the same set of uploaders is already in the archive (and even then only with feeling pain)). | but <ulink url="http://packages.debian.org/cdbs">CDBS</ulink> is preferred. Just my 0.02ยข vote against this. (Or at least mention debhelper as equal). * Other stuff: I'm missing something explicit about general comitt rights/etiquette. Can anyone add himself to the Uploaders of every package? Who is allowed to make which modifications to which packages's repository? Are obvious non-intrusive fixes in other people's packages in the project ok? And stuff like that. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]