Re: Copyright License Proposal
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 16:35 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-06-06 at 09:28am, Guy Hulbert wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 15:15 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > But no, copyright and licensing is *not* the same.
> > In fact, a "license" is a legal contract between the user and
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
> > Notice "publisher" rather than "author".
> For Debian, not publisher but "original authors" are needed:
They are only "needed" to verify the transfer of copyright to whoever
the upstream publisher is.
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 10:38 -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> Actually, it would be the copyright holder. Most of the time, this is
> the publisher but sometimes it isn't.
No. For the license terms, it is the publisher. The copyright holder
is the author, by default.
> Wikipedia may be correct for some legal jurisdictions - but most
> not all!
I believe, for Debian, this is a matter of policy rather than law.
Part of the purpose of the GPL is that one does not have to search for
the author except to verify that the license is valid.