Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Seconded with or without the following nit. >> Minor wording nit: I would put a period after "obtained" and make the >> next part a separate sentence. ("The copyright file should include a >> name or contact address for the upstream authors.") Otherwise, it >> could be read as saying that the copyright file can only omit the >> upstream source information if the URL pointed to by Homepage includes >> name or contact information, but (a) that's not the point of your >> change, and (b) we want that contact information to always be in the >> copyright file if available because upstream URLs tend to disappear. > I don't think this is so minor! > The paragraph says that the upstream contact information can just be a > URL, and if it is, then I think it could be omitted in favour of the > Homepage: field. It was deliberate that my addition applies to both the > 'must' and the 'should' requirements. > Do you disagree with this? Well, it doesn't, exactly... it says that it can be a web forum or bugtracker, but doesn't say anything about being a URL. Hm. Something about this sits wrong with me, in that I feel like we should capture the upstream contact information directly rather than relying on a URL remaining present on the web. But I'm not sure it's that big of a deal one way or the other, so I'm still okay with the wording you proposed originally (and still second it). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>