On 07/28/2011 08:40 PM, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > I seem to have missed Allison's email notifying us of this, but it looks > like this document has been merged with the ARB one, and also made > appropriately relative to the Ubuntu policy manual. This is great! > > I read over it today, and have a few comments: > > - 4.5 Copyright - this seems to be saying that debian/copyright is not > required if a distribution agreement is signed. Why is that? I think > it's useful and appropriate to still have debian/copyright, particularly > where some free software is included in the package.
This may a wording problem with "waived". I read that as meaning the copyright file won't need the same level of tiny detail we would use to verify that the package can be released under an entirely free license with no encumbrances. For example, the company won't need to do a code scan, or identify every file that was developed by a contractor vs employee vs affiliated entity. The copyright notices they would ordinarily give to their users are sufficient. Here's a suggestion for rewording. Nick, does that match your process? ------ * 2.3 Copyright Considerations: The debian/copyright file is where Debian packages store information about the copyright and license of a package. A distribution agreement transfers the responsibility of copyright management to the partner, so we won't perform independent verification of the contents of this file for partners. For the benefit of the users, you should include copies of the software's standard copyright statements and licensing terms in debian/copyright. It's also helpful to provide information on any free software included in the package. * 4.5 Copyright: debian/copyright: see notes on 2.3. * 12.5 Copyright information: see notes on 2.3. ------ > - In a couple of places, the language "the maintainer will choose how he > will..." is used (or similar). Please use gender neutral language > instead (I suggest "how they will"). Switched to "they". I also changed "copyright assignment" to "copyright management", should be closer to what was actually intended. > Otherwise it looks sane and reasonable to me, and I would approve it if the > above are resolved. > -- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
