Policy proposal for partner repository

[Allison Randal]

On 07/28/2011 08:40 PM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I seem to have missed Allison's email notifying us of this, but it looks
> like this document has been merged with the ARB one, and also made
> appropriately relative to the Ubuntu policy manual.  This is great!
> 
> I read over it today, and have a few comments:
> 
> - 4.5 Copyright - this seems to be saying that debian/copyright is not
>   required if a distribution agreement is signed.  Why is that?  I think
>   it's useful and appropriate to still have debian/copyright, particularly
>   where some free software is included in the package.

This may a wording problem with "waived". I read that as meaning the
copyright file won't need the same level of tiny detail we would use to
verify that the package can be released under an entirely free license
with no encumbrances. For example, the company won't need to do a code
scan, or identify every file that was developed by a contractor vs
employee vs affiliated entity. The copyright notices they would
ordinarily give to their users are sufficient.

Here's a suggestion for rewording. Nick, does that match your process?

------
* 2.3 Copyright Considerations: The debian/copyright file is where
Debian packages store information about the copyright and license of a
package. A distribution agreement transfers the responsibility of
copyright management to the partner, so we won't perform independent
verification of the contents of this file for partners. For the benefit
of the users, you should include copies of the software's standard
copyright statements and licensing terms in debian/copyright. It's also
helpful to provide information on any free software included in the package.

* 4.5 Copyright: debian/copyright: see notes on 2.3.

* 12.5 Copyright information: see notes on 2.3.
------

> - In a couple of places, the language "the maintainer will choose how he
>   will..." is used (or similar).  Please use gender neutral language
>   instead (I suggest "how they will").

Switched to "they".


I also changed "copyright assignment" to "copyright management", should
be closer to what was actually intended.

> Otherwise it looks sane and reasonable to me, and I would approve it if the
> above are resolved.
>