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

Re: Reporting 1.2K crashes

> Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> writes:
> > I see some value in distinguishing between upstream contact points for
> > problems with the software (bugs and such) and upstream contact points
> > for licensing issues (such as restoration of rights after a GPL-2
> > violation).  debian/copyright seems like the logical place for the
> > latter but not the former.

Le Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 09:12:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Yeah, I agree.  (And sorry about being grumpy last night.)  Or, to
> elaborate a bit, I think debian/copyright currently collects all the
> information that people need about the licensing, including the
> information required to verify the license with upstream.  That's why we
> have the provenance (so that you know exactly what is included in the
> package and where it came from, including anything excluded due to
> licensing), the upstream URL and name (so that you can find the same code
> again directly from upstream to verify the licensing if needed), and the
> upstream authors (so that you can reach them directly with questions about
> licensing).

How about simply replacing "should name the original authors" by "should
provide contact information for license questions" ?

I think that there is value to correct this point even if we can not define
precisely what should or must be in the Debian copyright file as a whole.

Have a nice Sunday,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: