Re: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:39:35PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > A little time after DebConf excitement has calmed down, I would
> > still like to see answers, in the public record, from the ftpmasters
> > on this issue.
> I am not an ftp master, but I think this follows from a
> straightforward set of principles:
Thanks for your response. (I am still very interested to get the
ftpmasters to join this discussion with their positions.)
> - Policy requires reproduction of the copyright notices for a work
> in debian/copyright.
This point in particular I don't think is clear. It has been argued
several times in the past that it is the copyright *license* that is
important, and needs to be reproduced in the package ‘copyright’ file.
Especially in combination with your later points (that the copyright
notices can't be “corrected”, which I take to imply that aggregation and
re-phrasing of the notices is also verboten), there seems to be little
point reproducing the verbatim copyright *notices*, especially since
they're all in the source regardless.
Either that, or there *is* benefit and justification for aggregating and
re-phrasing copyright notices, not just verbatim duplication, when
putting the extra copies in the package ‘copyright’ file.
\ 德不孤、必有鄰。 (The virtuous are not abandoned, they |
`\ shall surely have neighbours.) |
_o__) —孔夫子 Confucius, 551 BCE – 479 BCE |