On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 05:39:06PM +0000, Ron wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:28:28AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > OTOH this debian/copyright is clearly deficient in many ways, but stop > > accusing him of bad faith, you're just out of your mind. > > Thanks Pierre, you've just saved us all from my response to jeff's > wild slander from the hip. > > There are two issues here, the important one being -policy compliance, > the other stylistic. Since the bug was raised to red-alert-panic severity > without pointing to a single clear policy violation, I'll ask again for > the sake of our new audience, before I summarily close it by way of reply: > > Can someone show me any single MUST in policy that is violated by this > debian/copyright file? Bonus points if you can get them all first time.
yes it's a must. see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg00007.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html You have to list every copyright holder and copyright statements for any files. It's painful, but it's the rules. Though feel free to discuss the why and how on -devel@ :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpfR3X6W9G0a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
