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

Re: Let’s turn DEP5 into something useful



Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:52:36 +0200
> Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> > Copyright: © 2008 John Doe
> >            © 2009 Initrode, Inc.
> > # Actually I don’t think we should include detailed copyright
> > # information, but that’s another story.
> 
> If we can get a list of licences that do and do not require detailed
> copyright breakdowns in the binary packages, this would be solvable.

The last I knew, there is an outstanding contradiction between attitudes
like the above (“we don't need copyright statements collected in
‘debian/copyright’ unless required by the specific license”), and
actual practice from ftpmasters (where, as I understand it, packages
*without* that information in ‘debian/copyright’ run the risk of
rejection on that basis).

Can we get a definite statement about exactly who requires putting these
copyright statements in ‘debian/copyright’, and why?

-- 
 \             “The reward of energy, enterprise and thrift is taxes.” |
  `\                                                  —William Feather |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpZpZ4x4q3UI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: