Bug#658209: DEP-5: Clarifying copyright/license requirements

Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-project <at> lists.debian.org

It is needed to underline clearly that the machine-readable format
(DEP 5) does not require to document more information than before,
is optional, and is not a part of the Debian Policy.

(the above is inteded for the BTS summary function)

Le Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:30:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> 
> 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.

Le Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:04:03PM +0100, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:29:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> It migh be clearer to leave it out and start with "Nothing in ..."
> or rephrase it a bit:
> 
>     This proposal does not modify any of the requirements specified
>     in Debian Policy regarding the appropriate detail or granularity
>     to use when documenting copyright and license status in
>     debian/copyright.

Re: preguntas de debian

For user support, please contact one of the Debian user support
channels for help.

http://www.debian.org/support
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/
http://forums.debian.net/
http://ask.debian.net/
irc://irc.oftc.net/debian

--

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Call for volunteers to join DebConf Committee

The DebConf chairs are looking for additional people to join the
DebConf Committee, in time to help break any tie that emerges in the
DebConf13 decision process.

Here's the short-term job description:

Responsibilities: Read through the DebConf13 bids before the decision
meeting, attend the meeting, be ready to voice your opinions to help
reach a decision, and ready if needed to cast a vote to help a final
decision.  (And, in the event that it's impossible to get a decision
during the meeting for some good reason, attend a second meeting.)

Qualifications: It would be helpful if you have attended DebConf
previously, and if you hope to attend DebConf13 in 2013.

Ideal candidates would be willing to stay involved with DebConf13 to
some degree through its cycle.

If you're interested, please speak to one of us (moray/h01ger/gwolf)
on IRC or reply to this mail.

--

-- 
Moray
on behalf of the DebConf chairs

Re: Call for volunteers to join DebConf Committee

Re: Bug#658209: DEP-5: Clarifying copyright/license requirements

Le Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:23:08PM +0100, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:14:11 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > @@ -262,10 +265,15 @@
> >        <para>
> >          The declaration of copyright and license for files is done in one or
> >          more paragraphs.  In the simplest case, a single paragraph can be used
> > -        which applies to all files and lists all applicable copyrights and
> > -        licenses.
> > +        which applies to the whole package.
> >        </para>
> >        <para>
> > +        Only the license and copyright information required by the Debian
> > +        archive is required to be listed here.  While the syntax of the Files
> > +        paragraph allows more information to be provided if one desires, it
> > +        is totally optional.
> > +      </para>
> > +      <para>
> >          The following fields may be present in a Files paragraph.
> >        </para>
> 
> IMO the "totally optional" is not the best message to send, I think
> we rather mean "optional but recommended".

Good point.  Here is the patch that I have committed.

Index: copyright-format.xml
===================================================================
--- copyright-format.xml	(révision 258)
+++ copyright-format.xml	(copie de travail)
@@ -42,8 +42,11 @@
       automatically extract licensing information.
     </para>
     <para>
-      This is not a proposal to change the policy in the short term.  In
-      particular, nothing in this proposal supersedes or modifies any of the
+      This specification is not part of the Debian Policy, and its use is
+      optional.
+    </para>
+    <para>
+      Nothing in this proposal supersedes or modifies any of the
       requirements specified in Debian Policy regarding the appropriate detail
       or granularity to use when documenting copyright and license status in
       <filename>debian/copyright</filename>.
@@ -262,8 +265,9 @@
       <para>
         The declaration of copyright and license for files is done in one or
         more paragraphs.  In the simplest case, a single paragraph can be used
-        which applies to all files and lists all applicable copyrights and
-        licenses.
+        which applies to the whole package.  Only the license and copyright
+        information required by the Debian archive is required to be listed
+        here.
       </para>
       <para>
         The following fields may be present in a Files paragraph.

Are there other blocking issues with this DEP ?  If not, I will mark it
accepted after two week-ends.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120202145524.GA28994 <at> merveille.plessy.net

Re: Bug#658209: DEP-5: Clarifying copyright/license requirements

Charles Plessy <plessy <at> debian.org> writes:

> Are there other blocking issues with this DEP ?  If not, I will mark it
> accepted after two week-ends.

I have some lingering concern that the spec isn't sufficiently clear and
precise, and I know Steve was planning on writing up the issues that he
saw from doing a comprehensive review for that.  It seems like he's
struggling to find time to do that, but I do think that's an important
step, so I'm going to try to find time to do a comprehensive review of the
current text the way that I'd review a Policy proposal or RFC and will
send the issues that I come up with (if any).

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to do that within the
time frame that you mention above, and I don't think the process should
block on that work, so the deadline you propose sounds reasonable to me.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: Requirements for copyright notices in debian/copyright

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:42:31PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello, FTP Archive team,
> (Writing this message with my Debian Policy hat on.)
> 
> There have been multiple questions over the years about exactly what is
> required in the debian/copyright file, and I'd like to collect all of the
> answers and turn it into actual Policy so that we don't have ongoing
> uncertainty and conflicting interpretations of mail messages written ago.
> So this is probably the first in a series.  :)
> 
> I'm going to try to ask specific separate questions to get clarification,
> with a goal of taking those answers and turning them into a proposed
> Policy amendment, which I'll then send to you for vetting.

Dear ftpmasters,
  friendly ping on this request from the Policy editors. It'd be very
useful to clarify these requirements and document them in Policy.

It is something on which, if you want to, we can also try to get some
legal advice. But I do not recommend it, as it seems a daunting task, at
least if we want to enter in the details of the various licenses.  So
what Russ is proposing here seems a very reasonable approach: let's
start from what are your current requirements and their rationales.

TIA,
Cheers.
--

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »