Peter Miller <pmil...@opensource.org.au> writes: > My understanding is that all project files are covered, although > wildcards are permitted.
> Each different copyright x license combination needs its own separate > entry. I don't think this is the case. I see no reason why you couldn't just have a Files: * stanza that lists the same information that you have in debian/copyright already. I cared enough about that question that I raised exactly that issue on debian-project, and that's *my* understanding of the outcome at least. I think this property is important, since if we require that people document way more information than is currently documented (and clearly currently isn't necessary) in order to use DEP-5, that will get in the way of the benefits of DEP-5, namely machine-parseable license descriptions. > Note that "Copyright (C) 2008 Peter Miller" is different than "Copyright > (C) 2011 Peter Miller" is different than "Copyright (C) 1991, 2012 Peter > Miller", so the cross product is going to be substantial for long lived > projects, even when the number of contributors is small. I am absolutely certain that this is not the intention of DEP-5, and I would be in favor of modifying it to make that clear if you could identify the places where you got that mistaken impression. > But wait, there's more. A number of my projects have a subset of source > files from a second underlying project source with a compatible license > (GPL-to-GPL usually in my case) but they may have been GPL-v2+ and now I > have released them as GPL-v3+, so we have yet another source for a > larger license x copyright cross product. Here, I think it would be ideal to document them, but all that you're required to do is document the license under which you're distributing the file. If everything is GPL-compatible, and you're therefore using the GPL for everything, then one Files: * stanza specifying that license is all that's required. In an ideal world, we'd have more because it would be useful, but if nothing more is required by ftp-master now, I don't see any reason why DEP-5 should change that. > I estimate that my older and larger projects are going to have > multi-megabyte debian/copyright files. Hopefully they will compress > well as they are going to be hugely (but not trivially) redundant. > Hence, I want an automated tool. It still gripes me that such a huge > file is unlikely to be used by, or useful to, anyone. And, if an > automated tool *can* do it, why have the file at all? You seem to be upset at things that are really not true. Hopefully this will help.... -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d3ahslow....@windlord.stanford.edu
