On November 8, 2019 6:29:05 PM UTC, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 at 10:51:45 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> DEP-5 is the fastest way to write a d/copyright in some cases, but in
>> others it is not. Part of this is that DEP-5 somewhat encourages
>people
>> to include more detail than is needed.
>
>It would probably help if we had more clarity around what is needed: at
>the moment the only way to know what is required is to upload to NEW
>and
>see whether the package is accepted. Maintainers don't want their
>packages
>to get additional delays from NEW rejection, so they have to err on the
>side of including everything that the ftp team might possibly require.
>
>Omitting the license grant (#904729, which is blocked on ftp team
>feedback) would be one good way to reduce the amount of boilerplate
>we're pasting into the copyright file.
>
>If the per-file copyright information is something that is encouraged
>by DEP-5 but not strictly needed: perhaps it would be viable to
>suggest,
>or even encourage, changing this:
>
> Format: imagine the correct URL is here
>
> Files: a.c a.h aaa.c
> Copyright: 2019 Aaron Aaronson
> License: AAA
>
> Files: b.c
> Copyright: 2019 Belinda Bloggs
> License: BBB
>
> Files: c/h
> Copyright:
> 2010-2018 Aaron Aaronson
> 2016 Chris Cross
> License: CCC
>
> License: AAA
> You may do some things
>
> License: BBB
> You may do some other things
>
> License: CCC
> You may do different things
>
>into this less precise form?
>
> Format: imagine the correct URL is here
> Copyright:
> 2010-2019 Aaron Aaronson
> 2019 Belinda Bloggs
> 2016 Chris Cross
> License: AAA and BBB and CCC
>
> License: AAA
> You may do some things
>
> License: BBB
> You may do some other things
>
> License: CCC
> You may do different things
>
>(I haven't re-read the copyright format spec recently, so I don't know
>whether the spec actually allows this, and I don't know whether Lintian
>warns about it - but I feel as though it ought to be allowed.)
>
>> I think we should be optimising for reduced contributor time spent on
>> this task.
>
>I agree, but there's a limit to how far we can move in that direction
>without the ftp team clarifying their requirements.
I know for certain that the FTP Team has no requirements to use (or not) the
DEP-5 format. What the FTP Team needs is pretty orthogonal to using (or not)
DEP-5.
Scott K