user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org usertags 633994 normative discussion block 633994 by 462996 thanks
Le Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:06:44AM +0000, Nicholas Bamber a écrit : > > So the usage I was complaining about squeezed the upstream license > information into the short license and the Debian license information > into the long description. Surely that is confusing and how is a user > expected to know to read the copyright file in that way? Also it is > pointless as the upstream license information can be found in the > ".orig." tar ball. Dear Nicholas, my proposition to merge in #462996 was indeed not so good in the end (thanks Jonathan for the feedback). But I am happy that you took the time to clarify what you would like to be solved in #633994. Thank you very much for this. I think that, if the outcome of #462996 were a tightening of the rules, then the license squeezing that you described would not be sufficient to comply, and #633994 could be closed; but we do not know the outcome of #462996 yet. On the other hand, if the conclusion of #462996 would be permissive, then we could try to resolve in #633994 how to structure the practice of incrementing upstream license version in the Debian copyright files. I therefore took the freedom to document #633994 being blocked by #462996. Reading at your example again, it looks like of the link to /usr/share/common-licenses would be given in a separate field, then the contradiction would be resolved. I actually use a Comment field for this. I think that it will be interesting to see how common practice evolves, for instance if viewers and converters were developed and become popular. Also, package maintainers could simply clarify by not just using the dh_make template, but writing explicitely something like “we do not have a copy of the GFDL 1.1, but you can find a copy of the GFDL 1.2 here”, or “we relicensed this work under the GFDL 1.2 or superior, and you can find a copy here”. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111128012709.gc26...@merveille.plessy.net
