On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:46:11AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > In shorter words: I think something should be done about the copyright > > file to encourage developers to actually perform an audit of the > > license status of files in their packages before they upload. The > > current copyright template doesn't really encourage this; I like the > > machine-parseable system because it makes it easy to organize such an > > audit. > > Try doing that on iceweasel or xulrunner. Hint: there are about 30000 > files and a real lot of copyright holders.
It behoves us as distributors to check, no matter how hard it is. If you think that sounds like too much work, maintain a different package. > On top of listing copyright holders, I must say listing the individual > files for each license in the copyright file is also a major PITA. While > wildcards can be used, a huge mix of license like webkit is makes it > really painful to update. OTOH, I really don't care what files are under > what licence. I *do* know that there is a mix of BSD-2, BSD-3 and LGPL > code, plus some extra libraries embedded, and that any addition to > webkit is licensed under BSD or LGPL because upstream does enforce that > (except, obviously, embedded libraries, but we already have to check if > any is added to avoid duplication and build against the system one > whenever possible) You might not care, but the package users might do. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
