Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc
On la, 2010-11-13 at 20:12 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever? Or should we suggest that they can also shorten them to, say, 2010, J. Random Hacker? I'm fine with either. Currently the examples use the shortened form, so there's an implicit suggestion, but should be explicit about it? Or change the examples? Opinions? After the discussion, I am applying the attached patch for this. === modified file 'dep5.mdwn' --- dep5.mdwn 2010-11-14 11:19:15 + +++ dep5.mdwn 2010-11-20 09:13:46 + @@ -222,6 +222,11 @@ Copyright 2008 John Smith Copyright 2009, 2010 Angela Watts + +The Copyright field may contain the original copyright statement +copied exactly (including the word Copyright), or it can +shorten the text, as long as it does not sacrifice information. +Examples in this specification use both forms. * **`License`** * Licensing terms for the files listed in **`Files`** field for this paragraph @@ -543,7 +548,7 @@ Upstream-Name: X Solitaire Source: ftp://ftp.example.com/pub/games -Copyright: 1998, John Doe j...@example.com +Copyright: Copyright 1998 John Doe j...@example.com License: GPL-2+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public @@ -567,7 +572,7 @@ `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2'. Files: debian/* -Copyright: 1998, Jane Smith jsm...@example.net +Copyright: Copyright 1998 Jane Smith jsm...@example.net License: [LICENSE TEXT]
Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc
On su, 2010-11-14 at 12:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Dear Lars and everybody, here are two answers and a proposition for editorial changes. * Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever? Given that the upstream authors are somtimes themselves inconsistent, this would probably give extra work and possilibities of failure to the Debian package maintainer. I think that the current draft is good as it is. We should, of course, allow people to copy copyright statement verbatim into debian/control. However, since that can result in a fair bit of redundancy, with all the repeated Copyright words, some might prefer to simplify things and use something like the format the current examples in DEP5 do. Personally, I don't think we should suggest either verbatim or mangling. However, it would be good if all the examples didn't use the mangled format. Thus, we could change some examples to be unmangled. Any other opinions? Field types === @@ -85,12 +85,13 @@ for details. There are four kinds values for fields. Each field specifies which -kind is allowed. +kind is allowed. The field type is indicated in parenthesis, according +to Policy's §5.1. -* Single-line values. -* White space separated lists. -* Line based lists. -* Text formatted like package long descriptions. +* Single-line values (simple). +* White space separated lists (folded). +* Line based lists (multiline). +* Formatted text like package long descriptions (multiline). A single-line value means that the whole value of a field must fit on a single line. For example, the `Format` field has a single line value In the above patch, I also changed ‘Text formatted’ by ‘Formatted text’, which is more consistent with the text that follows in the DEP. Once policy has actually been amended, I'd be happy to apply this patch. Until then, I think it's best not to do it, since the policy amendment might still change. Redundancy with Policy == The Policy already disallows to use a field more than once in a paragraph. Perhaps that can then be removed from the DEP? @@ -114,8 +115,6 @@ For example, `Disclaimer` has no special first line, whereas `License` does. -Each field may occur at most once in a paragraph. - # Implementation ## Paragraps ### Header paragraph (Once) This'll require people to be intimate with the policy spec for this, but it's not that big a deal. Applied. RFC (2)822 == The most up to date version is 5322: @@ -139,7 +138,7 @@ * Syntax: line based list * The preferred address(es) to reach the upstream project. May be free-form text, but by convention - will usually be written as a list of RFC2822 addresses or URIs. + will usually be written as a list of RFC5322 addresses or URIs. * **`Source`** * Required Applied, thanks. -### Examples in pseudo-RFC-822 format +### Examples Simple A possible `copyright` file for the program 'X Solitaire' distributed in the Debian source package `xsol`: Applied, thanks. -- 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/1289733827.6260.47.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:23:47AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On su, 2010-11-14 at 12:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Dear Lars and everybody, here are two answers and a proposition for editorial changes. * Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever? Given that the upstream authors are somtimes themselves inconsistent, this would probably give extra work and possilibities of failure to the Debian package maintainer. I think that the current draft is good as it is. We should, of course, allow people to copy copyright statement verbatim into debian/control. However, since that can result in a fair bit of redundancy, with all the repeated Copyright words, some might prefer to simplify things and use something like the format the current examples in DEP5 do. Personally, I don't think we should suggest either verbatim or mangling. However, it would be good if all the examples didn't use the mangled format. Thus, we could change some examples to be unmangled. Makes good sense to me to deliberately provide examples of both kinds. Personally I favor mangling, but I understand how some may prefer to copy verbatim. How about adding an explicit note that the file format enforces neither mangling nor preserving copyright prefix - perhaps adding/repeating that Debian Policy is the place for eventual restrictions like that. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:12:15 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever? Or should we suggest that they can also shorten them to, say, 2010, J. Random Hacker? I'm fine with either. Currently the examples use the shortened form, so there's an implicit suggestion, but should be explicit about it? Or change the examples? Opinions? I prefer the shortened form; for me having it in the examples without explicitly mandating it would be enough. * At the moment the License field's description says the first line can only be a single short name, but the intention is clearly that it can be an arbitrary license shortname expression, with examples given later in the document. Would everyone be OK if I change it to say First line: an abbreviated name for the license, or expression giving alternatives (see *Short names* section for a list of standard abbreviations). instead? Fine with me. The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX compatibility. \o/ Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Peter, Paul Mary: Wedding Song signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: copyright statement form, etc
Dear Lars and everybody, here are two answers and a proposition for editorial changes. * Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever? Given that the upstream authors are somtimes themselves inconsistent, this would probably give extra work and possilibities of failure to the Debian package maintainer. I think that the current draft is good as it is. Would everyone be OK if I change it to say First line: an abbreviated name for the license, or expression giving alternatives (see *Short names* section for a list of standard abbreviations). instead? I support this change. The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX compatibility. It is great to see the end of the tunnel ! Thank you for your perseverance. I would like to propose a couple of last editorial changes. I have worked on Policy's section 5.1, that defines the syntax of control files. The patch I submitted was alredy seconded by two developers (#593909), and I expect it to be applied in the future. It brings some clarifications on the syntax of the fields, where three types are defined: simple, folded and multiline. I propose to add this information to the DEP: Field types === @@ -85,12 +85,13 @@ for details. There are four kinds values for fields. Each field specifies which -kind is allowed. +kind is allowed. The field type is indicated in parenthesis, according +to Policy's §5.1. -* Single-line values. -* White space separated lists. -* Line based lists. -* Text formatted like package long descriptions. +* Single-line values (simple). +* White space separated lists (folded). +* Line based lists (multiline). +* Formatted text like package long descriptions (multiline). A single-line value means that the whole value of a field must fit on a single line. For example, the `Format` field has a single line value In the above patch, I also changed ‘Text formatted’ by ‘Formatted text’, which is more consistent with the text that follows in the DEP. Redundancy with Policy == The Policy already disallows to use a field more than once in a paragraph. Perhaps that can then be removed from the DEP? @@ -114,8 +115,6 @@ For example, `Disclaimer` has no special first line, whereas `License` does. -Each field may occur at most once in a paragraph. - # Implementation ## Paragraps ### Header paragraph (Once) RFC (2)822 == The most up to date version is 5322: @@ -139,7 +138,7 @@ * Syntax: line based list * The preferred address(es) to reach the upstream project. May be free-form text, but by convention - will usually be written as a list of RFC2822 addresses or URIs. + will usually be written as a list of RFC5322 addresses or URIs. * **`Source`** * Required Pseudo-RFC format ? === The example in the DEP is in DEP format :) I propose to remove mention of pseud-RFC-822 format. RFC-822 parser can not parse the DEP, and our main source of inspiration is the Debian control files. @@ -545,7 +544,7 @@ ## Implementation -### Examples in pseudo-RFC-822 format +### Examples Simple A possible `copyright` file for the program 'X Solitaire' distributed in the Debian source package `xsol`: Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20101114035912.gd4...@merveille.plessy.net
