On Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:11:20 PM CST gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:44:52 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > > However, the consensus voiced in this thread (as was the case of the same > > in 2016) is that while license summarizing (which can include, if the > > license has language such as Russ identified, also listing copyrights) is > > valuable, nothing has been said in favour of copyright summarizing. > > My understanding is that a license without any information who puts > the software under this license (i.e. who is the copyright holder who > can grant these rights) is incomplete. OK, but surely it is up to Debian to choose the form of such information. For instance: each binary package is unambiguously linked to a source package; said source package is easy to locate and contains the complete copyright holder information. In the medical device industry, regulators allow vendors to use the "least burdensome" means of complying with a given regulation. At the risk of sounding naive, why can't apply this principle to copyright? -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.