On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 11:29:22 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > You seem to conflate two issues: > > a) writing debian/copyright in a machine-parsable format > b) writing debian/copyright with too much detail included > > Please use the machine-readable format because then machines can help > us. If you find it insane how detailed machine-readable format _can_ be, > then please use the format _without_ the insanity.
I agree with this part: the machine-readable format should just be an alternative encoding for whatever you would say (with whatever high or low level of detail you are using) in a plain-text copyright file. However: > Files: * > Copyright: The GTK Team and others > License: LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+ > Comment: > Specific authors omitted (unneeded for this license, and list is long). My understanding is that the ftp team would consider this to be a bug, and possibly a RC one, because: - the permissive licenses have been omitted (it should say "LGPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1+ and Expat and (Expat or unlicense) and ..."); - not all of the copyright notices that exist in the source code have been copied into the copyright file I would be delighted to be told I'm wrong about that by someone who speaks for the ftp team, but I'm reluctant to get software that I want in Debian kicked out of Debian by using its acceptance or rejection as an oracle to discover the ftp team's policy. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=956286 was opened at RC severity two days ago, saying that folks' copyright file is RC-buggy precisely because it does not replicate a list of copyright statements from the source code. smcv