CommonPackagingMistakes updated -- notes about debian/copyright

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi Matthew,

Am Montag 24 Juli 2006 02:36 schrieb Matthew Palmer:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 04:35:58PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 23 Juli 2006 03:03 schrieb Matthew Palmer:
> > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > > > == Prelude ==
> > > > When reviewing packages, one major common error I find is that
> > > > the copyright file is missing some information. However with
> > > > debian/copyright wrong or incomplete, you'll get a veto from me for
> > > > sure. The reason is simple: If something is missing in
> > > > debian/copyright, that's a violation of the involved licenses which
> > > > makes the package per se undistributable.
> > >
> > > On what do you base the assertion that information missing from
> > > debian/copyright automatically makes a package undistributable?
> >
> > As an example Section 1 of the GPL:
> > "... provided that you
> > conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> > copyright notice ..."
> >
> > violating against sec 1 will mean that the GPL isn't fullfilled and that
> > will mean that no license is given at all.
>
> You're going to need to decide if you're writing a Legal Requirements
> document or a "this is how we do things here" document.  The GPL doesn't
> require you to put stuff in debian/copyright.  No licence (AFAIK) requires
> you to put anything in debian/copyright.  You disagree with me here on the
> basis that "this is how we do things", but later you disagree with me
> because you were talking from a purely legal-theoretic point of view.

Actually this was from a legal POV as well, at least that's how I interpreted 
the GPL. But IANAL and I take your word for granted here ;).

>
> I'd suggest ensuring that the entire document talks about things as Ubuntu
> wants them done.  Things that are legal niceties should be covered as part
> of that, but only insofar as they are how Ubuntu wants them done.  If you
> start talking about legal requirements, you'll just confuse people.  Keep
> It Real Simple.

I tried to cover not only the *how* things should be done for ubuntu, but also 
*why* to do certain things. That way ppl. can get the big picture behind it. 
A major reason for debian/copyright is a legal one (thus the title "Keeping 
the archive legal or the importance of debian/copyright) and it's a tough 
task to keep the article simple.

After reading the article again, I must admit that I'm not really happy with 
it, as it contains errors and introduces more confusion than it clears things 
up.

Thus I'll rewrite it from scratch, trying to keep it more simple.

Thanks for your feedback, I'll report back once I've got a new version.

Cheers,
    Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20060724/458e7d08/attachment.pgp