r44 - in /web/deps: ./ dep5.mdwn

Thu Apr 2 04:41:55 UTC 2009

Author: vorlon
Date: Thu Apr  2 04:41:54 2009
New Revision: 44

URL: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/?sc=1&rev=44
Log:
Unbranding.

Modified:
    web/deps/   (props changed)
    web/deps/dep5.mdwn

Propchange: web/deps/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- bzr:revision-id:v4 (original)
+++ bzr:revision-id:v4 Thu Apr  2 04:41:54 2009
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@
 15 plessy at debian.org-20090326140956-53gtzw5sr691utey
 16 plessy at debian.org-20090326143300-a1rwc4h5xcd8zfay
 17 plessy at debian.org-20090329141920-j7hzc4er9rsgxqy7
+18 plessy at debian.org-20090401141238-3n99f8wo5o7rix5p

Propchange: web/deps/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- bzr:revision-info (original)
+++ bzr:revision-info Thu Apr  2 04:41:54 2009
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-timestamp: 2009-03-29 23:19:20.698999882 +0900
+timestamp: 2009-04-01 23:12:38.950999975 +0900
 committer: Charles Plessy <plessy at debian.org>
 properties: 
 	branch-nick: dep5-bzr

Modified: web/deps/dep5.mdwn
URL: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=44&op=diff
==============================================================================
--- web/deps/dep5.mdwn (original)
+++ web/deps/dep5.mdwn Thu Apr  2 04:41:54 2009
@@ -1,64 +1,68 @@
-[[!meta title="DEP-5: Machine-readable debian/copyright"]]
-
-	Title: Machine-readable debian/copyright
+[[!meta title="DEP-5: Machine-readable license and copyright summary"]]
+
+	Title: Machine-readable license and copyright summary
 	DEP: 5
 	State: DRAFT
 	Date: 2009-03-22
 	Drivers: Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org>, Charles Plessy <plessy at debian.org>, Noah Slater <nslater at tumbolia.org>, Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>
 	URL: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
 	Abstract:
-	 Establish a standard, machine-readable format for debian/copyright
-	 files within packages, to facilitate automated checking and
-	 reporting of licenses for packages and sets of packages.
+	 Establish a standard, machine-readable format for license and
+         copyright summary files within software source and binary
+         distribution media, to facilitate automated checking and reporting
+         of licenses for directly distributed or packaged programs.
 
 [[!toc ]]
 
+
 # Introduction
 
-This is a proposal to make `debian/copyright` machine-interpretable.
-This file is one of the most important files in Debian packaging, yet
-its existing format is vague and varies tremendously across packages,
-making it difficult to automatically parse.
-
-This is not a proposal to change the policy in the short term.
+This is a proposal to make machine-interpretable copyright and license
+summaries.  This is particularly an issue in the case of free software
+distributions, in which different works with different licenses are combined.
+This document proposes a simple format for summarising license terms and
+copyrights, in original upstream programs and in their packaged version. This
+tool will make the task easier for users to select a program according to their
+licensing preferences, and for the developpers of software distributions to
+ensure that only compatible works are combined.
+
 
 # Rationale
 
-The diversity of free software licenses means that Debian needs to care
-not only about the freeness of a given work, but also its license's
-compatibility with the other parts of Debian it uses.
+The diversity of free software licenses means that developpers, users and
+distributors needs to care not only about the freeness of a given work, but
+also its license's compatibility with the other works it uses.
 
 The arrival of the GPL version 3, its incompatibility with version 2,
-and our inability to spot the software where the incompatibility might
+and the difficulty to spot the software where the incompatibility might
 be problematic is one prominent occurrence of this limitation.
 
-There are earlier precedents, also. One is the GPL/OpenSSL
-incompatibility. Apart from grepping `debian/copyright`, which is
-prone to numerous false positives (packaging under the GPL but software
-under another license) or negatives (GPL software but with an "OpenSSL
-special exception" dual licensing form), there is no reliable way to
-know which software in Debian might be problematic.
-
-And there is more to come. There are issues with shipping GPLv2-only
-software with a CDDL operating system such as Nexenta. The GPL version 3
-solves this issue, but not all GPL software can switch to it and we have
-no way to know how much of Debian should be stripped from such a system.
-
-A user might want to have a way to avoid software with certain licenses
-they have a problem with, even if the licenses are DFSG-free. For
-example, the Affero GPL.
+There are earlier precedents, also. One is the GPL/OpenSSL incompatibility.
+Apart from semi-mechanised inspection, like grepping the sources or free-form
+license summaries, which is prone to numerous false positives (packaging under
+the GPL but software under another license) or negatives (GPL software but with
+an "OpenSSL special exception" dual licensing form), there is no reliable way
+to know which software in binary Linux distributions might be problematic.
+
+And there is more to come. There are issues with shipping GPLv2-only software
+with a CDDL operating system such as Nexenta. The GPL version 3 solves this
+issue, but not all GPL software can switch to it and we have no way to know how
+many programs should be stripped from such a system.
+
+Lastly, a user might want to have a way to avoid software with certain licenses
+that do not fit their work procedures or their philosophy, even if the licenses
+are recoginsed by many as free. For example, the Affero GPL.
+
 
 # Compatibility and Human-Readability
+
 The file must be encoded as UTF-8 and strictly formatted as a superset
 of RFC2822 including significant newlines. Free-form text is not
 allowed.
 
-The `debian/copyright` file must be machine-interpretable, yet
-human-readable, while communicating all mandated upstream information,
-copyright notices and licensing details.
-
 For the sake of human-readability this proposal avoids any complex field
 names or syntax rules.
+
 
 # Implementation
 ## Sections
@@ -70,7 +74,7 @@
 
  * **`Maintainer`**
    * Optional
-   * Line(s) of RFC2822 address or URIs or free text, containing the preferred address(es) to reach current upstream maintainer(s).
+   * Line(s) of RFC2822 address or URIs or free text, containing the preferred address(es) to reach current maintainer(s) of the distributed software.
 
  * **`Source`**
    * Optional
@@ -403,13 +407,22 @@
 
 ## Appendix: Note about the use of this format in Debian:
 
+The Debian Policy (Â§12.5) demands that each packages is accompanied by a file,
+`debian/copyright` in source packages and `/usr/share/doc/package/copyright` in
+binary packages, that contains a verbatim copy of its copyright and
+distribution license. In addition, it requires that copyrights must be
+extractable by mechanical means. This proposal for machine-readable copyright
+and license summary files has been crafted for Debian's use, but it is our hope
+that other software distributions, as well as upstream developpers will adopt
+it, so that review efforts can be easily reproduced and shared. 
+
+The copyright of the Debian packaging and the history of package maintainers is
+simply indicated in a **`Files: debian/*`** section.
+
 In the case packages in the contrib or non-free sections of the Debian archive,
 the **`Disclaimer`** field can be used for explaining that the contrib or
 non-free package is not part of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and briefly
 explain why (as per Policy Â§12.5).
-
-The copyright of the Debian packaging and the history of package maintainers is
-simply indicated in a **`Files: debian/*`** section.
 
 The Policy section Â§12.5 demands that packages distributed in the ''non-free''
 and ''contrib'' sections of the Debian archive carry a disclaimer in


