[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Can I have a package with no real name of upstream maintainer?

David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 04:32:08PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > Thomas Schoepf <schoepf@informatik.tu-muenchen.de> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 12:18:01PM +0200, Christian Surchi wrote:
> > > > I'm packaging tkpgp, from munitions.vipul.net archive. The
> > > > upstream maintainer doesn't want reveal his real name and wants only
> > > > "tftp" as name and an email address. The package is release under
> > > > GPL.  Is this possible?
> > > 
> > > The upstream author seems to be a bit strange (or paranoid) but
> > > technically/legally that's no reason to not include the software.
> > 
> > This should probably be looked at be the debian-legal folks, but it
> > strikes me that putting the GPL on something, without having a real
> > copyright holder, either means that nobody has been granted permission
> > to distribute it, or that the GPL conditions could never be enforced
> > (since there is no author to sue people that infringe against the GPL)
> There is an author, who goes by the name of "tftp". At least in the US,
> it's entirely legal for tftp to go by any name he wants for whatever
> purpose, as long as he's not out to defraud anyone. Do you think you
> could have made copies of "Primary Colors", just because the author
> went by Anonymous? Or that the publisher couldn't make copies, because
> they didn't know his real name (assuming they didn't)?

I'd imagine that the publisher holds the copyright in that case, so
the analogous situation would call for SPI to end up as the copyright

I doubt very much that it says Copyright (c) Anonymous, because that
would effectively give you the right to make copies of it, because
there would be nobody to sue you for infringing.

Cheers, Phil.

Reply to: