On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 at 10:51:45 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> DEP-5 is the fastest way to write a d/copyright in some cases, but in
> others it is not. Part of this is that DEP-5 somewhat encourages people
> to include more detail than is needed.
It would probably help if we had more clarity around what is needed: at
the moment the only way to know what is required is to upload to NEW and
see whether the package is accepted. Maintainers don't want their packages
to get additional delays from NEW rejection, so they have to err on the
side of including everything that the ftp team might possibly require.
Omitting the license grant (#904729, which is blocked on ftp team
feedback) would be one good way to reduce the amount of boilerplate
we're pasting into the copyright file.
If the per-file copyright information is something that is encouraged
by DEP-5 but not strictly needed: perhaps it would be viable to suggest,
or even encourage, changing this:
Format: imagine the correct URL is here
Files: a.c a.h aaa.c
Copyright: 2019 Aaron Aaronson
License: AAA
Files: b.c
Copyright: 2019 Belinda Bloggs
License: BBB
Files: c/h
Copyright:
2010-2018 Aaron Aaronson
2016 Chris Cross
License: CCC
License: AAA
You may do some things
License: BBB
You may do some other things
License: CCC
You may do different things
into this less precise form?
Format: imagine the correct URL is here
Copyright:
2010-2019 Aaron Aaronson
2019 Belinda Bloggs
2016 Chris Cross
License: AAA and BBB and CCC
License: AAA
You may do some things
License: BBB
You may do some other things
License: CCC
You may do different things
(I haven't re-read the copyright format spec recently, so I don't know
whether the spec actually allows this, and I don't know whether Lintian
warns about it - but I feel as though it ought to be allowed.)
> I think we should be optimising for reduced contributor time spent on
> this task.
I agree, but there's a limit to how far we can move in that direction
without the ftp team clarifying their requirements.
smcv
