Re: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.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 |
Ben Finney