On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:25:49 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote: > On 02/14/07 13:07, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I'm going to file a (normal severity) bug against the bootcd package > > to request that the license statement is clarified. > > It would be a good idea to put together a standard template for both > the preferred content of the debian/copyright file
There already is documentation about this. The most important links are, IMHO: * general rules in Debian Policy (currently in section 12.5 _Copyright information_) http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile * more detailed example in Debian New Maintainer's Guide (currently in section 4.2 _`copyright' file_) http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html#s-copyright * some brief HOWTOs posted to debian-devel-announce, the most recent of which is AFAIK: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html > and a well written > email for responding to package maintainers. This is harder, since the issues to be raised are not so uniform and repetitive... :-( [...] > In general, it would have been useful to know that directly below the > "most recent GPL" line was the text: > > On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General > Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. > > I think it would have taken only a few seconds then for many people to > mention this is very likely a simple "communication/knowledge error" > of the package maintainer and probably not something that needed to > expend any of FSF's legal resources. IMHO. Well, my main concern is not that bootcd could be interpreted as licensed under the terms of the Great Painful License or of the Grossly Postponed License. I am quite confident that the copyright holder (who happens to also be the Debian maintainer) intended to license his work under the GNU General Public License, as published by the FSF. The point is: which version(s) of the GNU GPL? This is not clear at all, IMO. And I had confirmation from the FSF that the license statement is confusing... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpXNa7aaWP9C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
