PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM ALL LISTS!
I tried to remove myself. It didn't work.
I tried to contact the list admin. I did not get an answer.
I'M GONNA SPAM YOUR LISTS UNTIL YOU REMOVE ME!
On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:15:24 PM MST Alan M Varghese wrote:
> Soren,
>
> > ... but it is also perfectly fine to ship them in the same file.
>
> I think what Wookey is referring to is that GPL and LGPL licenses contain
> a line that says something like:
> 'Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.'
> I believe this copyright refers to the text of the license itself. Hence, it
> might not be a good idea to include a second copyright in this same file.
I assume that is what he is referring to, but it really isn’t a problem. You typically list the project copyright above the license. Below, you list the license, which can include the copyright of the license text itself.
As I mentioned in the previous email, this is done all the time, including in debian/copyright files if the follows the recommended format.
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
As an example, see the debian copyright file for privacybrowser, which is one of the packages I maintain:
https://salsa.debian.org/soren/privacybrowser/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads
Also, see how it is handled upstream:
https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserPC.git;a=blob;f=COPYING;hb=HEAD
And on the web interface:
https://www.stoutner.com/privacy-browser-pc/licenses/
The point being that a single file can contain multiple pieces of copyright and license information without problem, as long as all of the information is clearly communicated. In fact, in many cases, like scenarios where there are multiple differing copyrights or licenses involved in a project (see, for example, the Chromium package), not listing all the different copyrights and licenses is incomplete.
https://salsa.debian.org/chromium-team/chromium/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads
--
Soren Stoutner