Re: RFS: isomd5sum (formerly anaconda)
On 9/14/06, James Westby <email@example.com> wrote:
Not quite, you missed md5.c. This file is not under the same license as
the rest of the package, and must be documented in debian/rules.
(I'm assuming you mean debian/copyright, not debian/rules.)
Doh. Is there boilerplate text for non-copyright public domain text,
or should I basically put the first paragraph of md5.c's comments in
Is Michael Fulbright supposed to be asserting Copyright as well, or is
he just the author or similar? I believe that he is not, but I wonder if
anyone else has any opinions.
He's "just" the author, and is already documented as such. Red Hat
employees assign copyright to the company for code they produce.
> I decided
> to separate the isomd5sum directory of the Anaconda sources into its
> own tarball. As a result, there is now only one copyright holder (Red
> Hat, Inc), and one license (GPLv2). More on that is at
> http://www.finnie.org/software/isomd5sum/ (this also serves as a "home
> page" for the broken-out tarball).
This is not the normal method of doing this, but I think that it still
works. It makes it slightly harder for whoever picks up the package if
you were to go AWOL though.
Yes, this is not the ideal situation, but the legal requirements makes
it pretty daunting to maintain copyright notices for the entire
anaconda project, especially considering 95% of the code won't be used
(actually, 99.65% by source tarball size). If isomd5sum were
constantly updated, I wouldn't have considered this, but the source
has been feature complete and relatively untouched for years now.
Nonetheless, I will consider it an active duty to check for changes in
Also if you are repackaging can you remove the .cvsignore files from the
This will be done.
There is also no need to have the current maintainer documented in
debian/copyright, that's what debian/control is for.
I agree, but that paragraph is listed as a "good example" in