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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:
>>> We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
>>> of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
>>> most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream teams?
>> It's worth noting here that most upstreams distribute only source, and
>> hence rely on the fact that the source carries the licenes and the
>> copyright statement and they don't have to do anything special with it.
>> When we compile that software and distribute only the binaries as a
>> separate package, we've stripped off, say, a BSD license statement and its
>> corresponding copyright statement from where upstream put it, and we do,
>> under the license, have to preserve that somewhere in our derived work,
>> including the corresponding copyright notice.  If upstream has a bunch of
>> files under various varients of the BSD license, we are required by those
>> licenses to preserve all of those notices in the binary package.
>> This much is a very valid point which I was vaguely aware of but hadn't
>> really thought about before this thread.
> ,----
> | 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> |    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> |    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> `----
>         Do we ever distribute just the binary on our archives?  That
>  would be illegal, yes. But, if in the *other materials* we distribute
>  is the source tar ball, we a re all OK.
>         I think we have source areas of the archive, we have source CD
>  iso's, we provide ways to get said "other materials" via apt-get
>  source, and so we are all covered. There is not real reason to add all
>  that into debian/copyright just to cater to the BSD license excerpted
>  above. 

And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg is a
symlink, so they have no copyright. Which is another reason why we don't it, at
least in the general case.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: