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

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

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

 \        “My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted.” —Steven |
  `\                                                            Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: