Documenting copyright holders in debian/copyright
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Somewhat recently there has been significant discussion within the project
regarding the necessity of documenting copyright attribution in
debian/copyright. The FTP team has reviewed the situation and takes the
following position:
1. Most licenses require copyright statements to be included. In the FTP
team's view, unless a license explicitly states that copyright attributions
only apply to source distributions, they apply for source and binary, so must
be documented in debian/copyright for license compliance reasons. An example
of source only requirements can be found in the Apache 2.0 license, paragraph
4:
(c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
the Derivative Works; and
The BSD (and similar) licenses are examples of licenses that require copyright
attribution to be maintained for both source and binaries:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
GPL requires an "appropriate copyright notice" for both source and binary
forms.
2. Additionally, it is currently required by policy:
2.3 Copyright considerations
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
information and distribution license in the file
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright ...
3. In a few cases, FTP masters have determined that full copyright
attribution is both not feasible and, given the nature of the package, that an
appropriate copyright notice does not need to list all copyright holders and
allowed packages with an incomplete debian/copyright into the archive. Such a
package still violates policy, although the FTP masters believe it to be a
minor violation. Just because such a determination has been made about one
package, does not mean it should apply to another package. Almost certainly
the answer to requests for additional exceptions will be no.
4. The FTP team believes that documenting copyright holders in
debian/copyright is a good idea. If policy were modified to make it along the
lines of SHALL if the license does not explicitly allow it to be left out of
binary distributions and SHOULD in all other cases, the FTP team believes this
would be a good change make maintainer's efforts easier when a package license
allows for it.
Scott K
For the FTP Team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=CdBg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: