> -----Original Message----- > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt- > [...] > > That might be helpful, although the current format lacks, for > > example, per- entity copyright (yes, each contributor name). > [...] > I'm genuinely curious though why debian/copyright needs this on a file level. > Do you know the reasons?
Actually re-reading " Example files paragraphs" from https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ : > Files: * > Copyright: 1975-2010 Ulla Upstream > License: GPL-2+ > > Files: debian/* > Copyright: 2010 Daniela Debianizer > License: GPL-2+ > > Files: debian/patches/fancy-feature > Copyright: 2010 Daniela Debianizer > License: GPL-3+ > > Files: */*.1 > Copyright: 2010 Manuela Manpager > License: GPL-2+ > > [...] > Since the license of the manual pages is the same as the other files in the > package, the last paragraph above could instead be combined with the first > paragraph, listing both copyright > statements in one Copyright field. Whether to combine paragraphs with the > same license is left to the discretion of the author of the debian/copyright > file. If I got this right it says you can combine copyright lines from multiple files if the license is the same. So far we don't actually support differently licensed files in one json object (that's why e.g. https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/160970/11/src/3rdparty/angle/qt_attribution.json is split up in multiple objects). Hence I'm questioning whether we really need to support separating Copyright's per file. Kai _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
