Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unacceptable. If a package has to go through NEW, it takes about
twice as much time to update this list than to do the actual packaging
Why is this list needed?
Often the license requires it. For instance the BSD license says,
"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright".
But we do distribute binaries in the debs - and debian/copyright is
not only for the source but also ends up in the deb.
Yes, or better debian/copyright is *only* for the binary .
The sources have the original license files and all legal notices
in the right place. Debian source format don't allow to remove
legal notices (but recreating the orig.tar).
Note: a insane developer could remove it in diff, but the
original notice is still distributed in the orig.tar.
The point was: we are mixing sources requirements (the part you did not
quoted) with binary requirement (the quoted part).
 Note: I did not write "the license of binary". It is fine
to document all sources licenses, as an additional information for
the *binary*, but sources-only requirements are not necessary in