Licenses and debian/copyright (was: Damage-control GR and XFree86 non-freedom)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Licenses and debian/copyright (was: Damage-control GR and XFree86 non-freedom)
- From: Jens Peter Secher <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 22:20:11 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <1UEIm-2AIemail@example.com> (Anthony Towns's message of "Tue, 11 May 2004 14:40:14 +0200")
- References: <1PZY9-7YPfirstname.lastname@example.org> <1Qts5-71Jemail@example.com> <1QyLb-2Ikfirstname.lastname@example.org> <1QClP-5E1email@example.com> <1UEIm-2AIfirstname.lastname@example.org>
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> A license is, literally, permission from the rights holder. If the
> author gives the permissions the DFSG requires, it doesn't matter if
> that's actually accurately recorded in the debian/copyright file.
Does the last sentence mean "it makes no difference whether the
debian/copyright file accurately records the permissions of the author,
the important thing is that the author has indeed given the permissions
required by the DFSG"?
But, then, where *should* these permissions be recorded?
> same thing's true if the author doesn't give that permission, of course.
What does "the same thing's true" mean?
Sorry to be so daft,
Jens Peter Secher
_DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher get2net dk_