On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package, > without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that > specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to > all files would be an untruth. (Or are we expanding the requirements > for copyright files to map copyright notices to files in the source > package?)
There is a consensus, as far as I can see, to allow the first (header) paragraph to have Copyright and License fields that will apply to the package as a whole, rather than to each file. This is an upcoming change that is in the pipeline (but I don't want to make all changes at once). > I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers > implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright > notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files. On the other hand, this means a paragraph where the Files field is missing by mistake will be interpreted wrongly. I find putting the information in the header paragraph to be cleaner, but I admit it is a subtle point. It's better to be explicit when possible, to allow errors to be noticed easier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1284397783.2308.58.ca...@havelock
