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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> ,----
>> | 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.
> Are we allowed to consider the source package materials we provide with
> the distribution?  I was under the impression that we were not.  (The GPL
> requirement, which I know we do satisfy, is somewhat weaker.)

        Debian can. But that is not being very nice to people who
 preinstall debian on machines, or who just distribute the binary CD's

        So, I am not opposed to people adding whatever they want to to
 the copyright file, but it is not, I think, a _requirement_ that we do
 so. We may want to do so to be nice to a subset of our downstream.
 There is a trade off involved in this trying to be nice to some
 downstreams and the time it takes away from working on actual problems
 in the package that affect _all_ downstream users. I'm happy to let my
 peer DD's determine where the line ought to be drawn for their

        Also, I think if we are packaging something an upstream
 provides in binary form as well, we cna just look at what the binary
 package contains in terms of a copyright notice for a guideline.

The worst part of having success is trying to find someone who is happy
for you. Bette Midler
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: