On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: > 1. Shouldn't we add a note to the Policy (or the Developer's Reference) > that there should be a license statement for the Debian-specific > parts in debian/copyright? I think we should, and it should be a > "must" directive post-sarge. More to the point it should have been done, for any packages that aren't trivial. > 2. Should we encourage maintainers and contributors to assign the > copyright to SPI, as the x people did? No, SPI is useless. > 3. Is there any advice on whether to put the debian-specific part under > the same license as the upstream work, or whether this does not > matter? That would depend on the license. MIT if unsure. > 4. How should we proceed with old contributions? Especially if > maintainers have frequently changed, or complex patches from the BTS > have been applied, it might be hard to find out all the copyright > holders. We can't even find all the current maintainers. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature