On 13/11/15 17:10, Wookey wrote: > The criteria that makes most sense to me is 'by licence'. +1 > I just uploaded rosdistro > (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ros-rosdistro) and got a comment from > the reviewing ftpmaster that combining the two different copyright holders for BSD-3-clause files into one stanza was not really right: > https://sources.debian.net/src/ros-rosdistro/0.4.2-1/debian/copyright/ This particular example names Willow Garage third clause of the BSD-3-clause text, which (I'm guessing) was not there for the Open Source Robotics Foundation copyrighted files. Being a common modification I think that listing the generic BSD-3-clause (saying copyright holder(s)) should be fine, at least if upstream claims the project to be under the BSD-3-clause license, on the safe side it would be better to list both licenses stating that in some files this slightly modified version of the BSD-3-clause license was found, but IANAL. Happy hacking,
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature