Hi everyone I'm not sure whether one has to interpret the current Policy section 2.3 as requiring to include copyright information _about copyright information_ itself (or for those files to be DFSG-compliant for that matter.)
If that is not the case, then what Sean proposes > So I think the answer to how such license text files should be > documented is that they shouldn't be. is the right way to proceed, IMHO. In the FOSS world, this is not without precedent, as e.g. the Free Software Foundation Europe backed [REUSE spec is very clear about license files themselves not being covered by the spec][1]. [1]: https://reuse.software/spec-3.3/#covered-and-ignored-files However, there are other files in addition to licenses themselves, which do not need copyright information, IMHO: e.g., REUSE.toml or .license files as described by the REUSE spec. I.e., files whose sole purpose is the conveyance of licensing/copyright information. If there is consensus on **not** requiring copyright information for all files which are included in the source/binary package which supply exactly this type of information, the question becomes how to deal with Lintian recognizing what those files are exactly. Maybe have a fourth stanza type in d/copyright which is a list of patterns/paths identifying files license/copyright information rather than trying to make this information fit the existing File stanza? @Guillem: Which tools have a hard requirement on d/copyright covering *all* files in the package? Best, -- Alex # No gods, no masters. # 47A5 9C45 FA69 E651 25ED 0B98 9891 FC5D 3C3C 4426
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
