On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:26:36AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: Hi,
> ..and configure scripts have parts of autotools, Makefile.ins contain > code from automake, and even compiled binaries contain stuff that > originates from the compiler. > > I don't think these should be documented in debian/copyright, that'd > lead to an endless list, in every single package in the archive. > > The copyright file should - in my opinion- document the licenses of that > single package, not the licenses of itself, and everything else that is > used to build it It's obvious that it's a very tedious task to look into *every* file to document every copyright statement. IIRC the maintainer for bigger packages already ranted about that the last time this has been discussed. My own experience so far was that you often find unclear or otherwise strange copyright notes. I would even go so far to conclude that a lot of OSS developers are rather sloppy when it comes to copyright assignments, license checks. Let alone the use of the GPL file header for every source file. The question is what should be achieved with d/copyright? Give just a short overview over the main parts of the package or a complete overview of the complete package contents? Since http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html I try to document every file with a copyright statement even if it's auto generated. After all someone could reuse it as it is. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110719085418.ga23...@niap.stormbind.net
