Hey, On Sat, Jul 19, 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: > I have recently had a package rejected out of NEW on the grounds that the > debian/copyright file was incomplete for not listing the GFDL, which is used > as the license for some documentation that is shipped in the source but not > included in the binary packages.
I understand you raise that a) this is not expected usage of debian/copyright and b) ftpmasters shouldn't raise such issues at the time of an unrelated trip to NEW. I would just like to comment on a). I do think we should cover copyright and licensing of all files in all source packages. The data isn't useful on installed systems but since we do distribute sources, I think the full source packages should be covered, or stripped before upload. I wouldn't mind re-using the current debian/copyright (preferably in a machine-readable format) and /usr/share/doc/*/copyright files, but if you think this can cause clutter, a debian/copyright.source might be an option. Or we could change the machine-readable format in a way expressing "source-only" licensing chunks. We could go as far as having per binary package copyright files if individual maintainers are tempted to maintain these. Cheers, -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]