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

Re: Revising Policy 12.5 (Copyright information)

Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:38:34 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
>>> But do you think this is possible ?
>> Sure.  Resolving this sort of thing is the point of the Policy process,
>> after all, and we have a clear authority that does the enforcement
>> (ftp-master), so it seems likely that we can reach a clear policy that we
>> can document.
> Sorry, but there was also an argument below in my message.
> The point is that there are possibly a lot of corner cases, such as the 
> autotools case, for which we can't really decide and list every single issue 
> or produce a general rational.
> Since the vast majority of the packages fall into a regular copyright and 
> licensing, this would also mean overload the policy with stuff that is only 
> relevant in a very small number of cases in proportion.

If copyright holder listing isn't needed at all, there's no special-casing
needed for autofoo stuff (wrt copyright listing, not wrt licenses though).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: