Brian Mays wrote: > > As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the README.Debian file is > > best reserved for changes in the *behavior* of the package, not in > > the changes to the source tree.
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added: > Assuming you're referring to this from Josip: > > > A more general description of the important stuff that's changed in > > the behavior of the program in the package can/should still be found > > in README.Debian file. > > ... I don't see how this argues that it's "best reserved" for behavior > changes, it seems the logical place to look for all kinds of "what's > special about the Debian package" kind of info. Yes, but it should be general information of this type. I think that a detailed list of changes to the upstream source does not fit in here. When I see "README.Debian", I immediately assume that this is where the maintainer has included information such as warnings about unusual ways that the program has been built for Debian or how the Debian package might differ from the way other distributions (perhaps even the upstream developers) build and package this software. I don't expect to see details about changes to the source. Furthermore, unless the Debian package is really "special" and the Debian package differs significantly from similar packages distributed from other sources, I don't see the need for a README.Debian file at all. > On the other hand, the logical connection between changes and a file > called "copyright" is completely lost on me (other than the "that's > where we say it is" connection, of course.) I'll admit that it doesn't make sense at first glance. I'll try, however, to make an ad hoc argument. The copyright file is where we list the copyrights placed on the software, i.e., who owns the software, as the name of the file suggests. Since we are redistributing copywritten material, we need permission from the copyright holder to do so. Therefore, this permission (the license) is also included in this file. But wait. That is not all. We are not redistributing the copywritten material exactly as we received it. The software has been modified in some way. (At the very least, we have added files to the source tree.) Therefore, we also need permission to distribute a modified version of the software. Fortunately, this is also covered by the license information that we have included. With this in mind, however, since we are distributing a modified version of someone else's work, I think it is prudent to also include a summary of our modifications. Furthermore, I think that it makes sense to keep this list of modifications with the information on the licensing agreement that allows us to make these modifications. Therefore, in summary, the copyright file contains the following information: (1) who owns the software, (2) the modifications that we have made to the upstream version of the software that we are distributing, and (3) the conditions by which a modified version of the software may be distributed. These three things seem to go well together. In fact, the more that I think about it, the more convinced I become that Ian Murdock and the early Debian developers got it right, and the format of the copyright file makes good sense. > > > One of the problems with putting it in the copyright file is that > > > for packages that don't use one of the common licenses, you have > > > to modify the upstream copyright file, which feels like a bad > > > thing to me. > > > > Huh? I don't understand this. > > The copyright/license statement of the upstream author is legal > document (or at least we tend to treat it as such, IANAL). Modifying > that document seems like a bad idea, even though our modifications are > actually additions. Modifying it to add irrelevant information that > could easily be placed in a more logical location seems especially so. Hmm ... none of the copyright files in my packages are direct copies of a copyright/license statement file. If fact, several of the upstream sources for my packages don't contain such a file at all. In these packages, the copyright and license statement are often buried in the code, as a long comment. Then, I have to extract this information from the source file, and copy it into the copyright file. Refraining from modifying the document (as you are using this term) is not an option here, unless I want to copy the source file and rename it "copyright". When the license is indeed included in the copyright file (for a nonstandard license), it forms an additional section at the end of the file, a section in which the license has been copied verbatim into the file. We are not modifying the document at all. At least, we are not modifying the content of the document. I don't really think that, just because the document no longer occupies its own file, we have modified the document in a significant way. - Brian
