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

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matthew Garrett wrote:
Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same
there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: they should reset the
Maintainer field to point to themselves, and continue to give credit
to the Debian developer in a suitable fashion.

The founder of Debian seems to disagree, but still. The DCCA situation suggests that we need to define exactly what we want and make it clear to all derived distributions that this is what we expect. This isn't something that only affects Ubuntu - we're talking about a large number of fairly major distributions.

Come on, Matthew, that's a slight misrepresentation, now isn't it?

Matthew is right that this has been common practice for as long as
derivatives have been around (6-7 years now)--it's just that Ubuntu
takes derivation much further than any of the rest
of us have done, so the problem is a bit more pronounced for Ubuntu.

Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to
me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what
Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer
field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I'm aware of it.

Ian Murdock

"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige

Reply to: