* Noah Slater: > If you're telling me that the FTP masters would be happy with blanket license > statements for a package, what is stopping you from using the existing format > to > say something along the lines of: > > Files: * > Copyright: Copyright 2008, Damien Katz <dam...@apache.org> > Copyright 2008, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> > Copyright 2008, Christopher Lenz <cml...@apache.org> > Copyright 2008, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> > License: Apache-2.0 > On Debian systems the full text of the Apache License (Version 2) can be > found > in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0' file.
Files: share/www/script/json.js License: PD In the public domain. This file does not exist. The file NOTICE contains this hint: | This product includes software developed at | The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). I'm wondering if this should be reflected in the copyright file (and if the NOTICE file should be installed in the binary package, in case the binary package ends up on different media than the sources). I don't think this is a significant problem, but it probably means that the machine-readable copyright file format is, in itself, not a solution. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
