Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 06:19:26PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: I see seconds by Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (message #137) Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org (message #142) Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org (message #147) gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org (message #152) What is the next step? Well, I have created a git branch 'bug566220-ballombe' with your changes. Any objection I commit it by the other policy editors ? Looks good to me; please merge. (Although I'd prefer it if you'd add the e-mail addresses to the Seconded lines in the changelog as well.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:20:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 06:19:26PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: I see seconds by Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (message #137) Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org (message #142) Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org (message #147) gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org (message #152) What is the next step? Well, I have created a git branch 'bug566220-ballombe' with your changes. Any objection I commit it by the other policy editors ? Looks good to me; please merge. (Although I'd prefer it if you'd add the e-mail addresses to the Seconded lines in the changelog as well.) Done. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 06:19:26PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org usertags 566220 + seconded thanks Hi, I see seconds by Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (message #137) Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org (message #142) Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org (message #147) gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org (message #152) What is the next step? Well, I have created a git branch 'bug566220-ballombe' with your changes. Any objection I commit it by the other policy editors ? Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org usertags 566220 + seconded thanks Hi, Jonathan Nieder wrote: --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -569,8 +569,8 @@ headingCopyright considerations/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file + Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its + copyright information and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). /p [etc] I see seconds by Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (message #137) Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org (message #142) Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org (message #147) gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org (message #152) Some of the discussion was derailed by my overreaching commit message. I think it’s worth scratching that and just saying the relevant things. Be explicit about the need for copyright statements in debian/copyright, to clear up an ambiguity pointed out by Ben Finney. This says “copyright information” instead of “copyright notices” to reflect the fact that as long as the information is there, it doesn’t matter if it has exactly the same formatting. For example, combining the dates from multiple copyright notices is a common practice. What is the next step? Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
On moandei 8 Febrewaris 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 76ac0d4..ea3ed35 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -569,8 +569,8 @@ headingCopyright considerations/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file + Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its + copyright information and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). /p @@ -1638,8 +1638,8 @@ sect id=dpkgcopyright headingCopyright: filedebian/copyright/file/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file + Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its + copyright information and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). Also see ref id=pkgcopyright for further considerations related @@ -9108,7 +9108,7 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY p Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its - copyright and distribution license in the file + copyright information and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file. This file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. /p -- 1.7.0.rc1 I second this proposed change, as I believe it better reflects widespread current practice. cheers, Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 21:33:29 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Packages must include a copyright or lack-of-copyright statement in debian/copyright. Claims that the policy never meant copyright notices were supposed to be included in the first place only muddle the discussion. This says “copyright information” instead of “copyright notices” because as long as the information is there, it doesn’t matter if it has exactly the same formatting. For example, combining the dates from multiple copyright notices is a common practice. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com Seconded. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 09:33:29PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Packages must include a copyright or lack-of-copyright statement in debian/copyright. Claims that the policy never meant copyright notices were supposed to be included in the first place only muddle the discussion. This says “copyright information” instead of “copyright notices” because as long as the information is there, it doesn’t matter if it has exactly the same formatting. For example, combining the dates from multiple copyright notices is a common practice. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com --- Steve Langasek wrote: I agree that copyright information vs. copyright notices is reasonable, and there's no clear precedent in policy or the archive for preferring the former interpretation over the latter. So I'd be happy to second your proposed text over my own. Thanks. Okay, here goes. Seconded. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
Packages must include a copyright or lack-of-copyright statement in debian/copyright. Claims that the policy never meant copyright notices were supposed to be included in the first place only muddle the discussion. This says “copyright information” instead of “copyright notices” because as long as the information is there, it doesn’t matter if it has exactly the same formatting. For example, combining the dates from multiple copyright notices is a common practice. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com --- Steve Langasek wrote: I agree that copyright information vs. copyright notices is reasonable, and there's no clear precedent in policy or the archive for preferring the former interpretation over the latter. So I'd be happy to second your proposed text over my own. Thanks. Okay, here goes. policy.sgml | 10 +- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 76ac0d4..ea3ed35 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -569,8 +569,8 @@ headingCopyright considerations/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file + Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its + copyright information and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). /p @@ -1638,8 +1638,8 @@ sect id=dpkgcopyright headingCopyright: filedebian/copyright/file/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file + Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its + copyright information and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). Also see ref id=pkgcopyright for further considerations related @@ -9108,7 +9108,7 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY p Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its - copyright and distribution license in the file + copyright information and distribution license in the file file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file. This file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. /p -- 1.7.0.rc1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#566220: [PATCH] Clarify “copyright and distribution license”
Le Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 09:33:29PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : Packages must include a […] lack-of-copyright statement in debian/copyright. Hi Jonathan, That sounds new to me. Where is it requested that works in the public domain must be documented as such in debian/copyright ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
