Hi, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I still have to quote license texts verbatim. The only > "advantage" of the old format is that I can format d/copyright more > freely but the same information must be present anyway. It is simply not > feasible to educate all upstreams in existence to write a Debian-like > copyright file. They rightly say that it is not their problem how > downstreams process and treat their copyright information. This may be the source of my confusion. I am used to upstreams being cooperative when I ask them for a clear LICENSE file, especially when I provide them with a patch to do so. Some licenses even require that. Upstream has to follow the license, too, when they incorporate code from third parties. Even in a situation where they wrote all the code themselves, making license compliance easy for downstream users helps adoption of their code. In other words, I have almost never experienced the kind of resistance you are talking about. Even a package that adopts copyright-format 1.0 does not need to put per-file license information in debian/copyright. It is perfectly okay to have a single 'Files: *' paragraph with the project's license. Some maintainers prefer to maintain per-file license information since they think it makes their lives easier. Thanks, Jonathan
