Re: DEP 5 proposal omits original Debianization information
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> The one reason to include this information in debian/copyright is that
> the packagers may be copyright holders for contents under Debian.
[…]
Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> writes:
> Ben Finney dijo [Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:27:04PM +1000]:
> > I don't see why ‘debian/copyright’ needs to “name the Debian
> > maintainer(s) who were involved with its creation”; surely the best
> > location for that is the already-mandatory package maintainer data
> > on entries in ‘debian/changelog’.
>
> However, having the maintainer name in debian/copyright does not only
> serve the identification purpose - It also says under which licensing
> scheme are the modifications licensed.
Yes, of course. The license terms for all parts of the work, including
the contributions from Debian maintainers, need to be written in
‘debian/copyright’.
My point was that there is no *special* need for listing “the Debian
maintainer(s) who were involved with its creation” having already
satisfied the general list-all-copyright-license-terms and the needs of
‘debian/changelog’.
--
\ “My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted.” —Steven |
`\ Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: