Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?
Hi Jonas,
This is a very interesting discussion, it's IMO important to have it.
On 12/23/2017 02:45 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> The only thing we really need is to make sure about the license of the
>> software. Having a copyright holder name is only *helping* to make
>> sure that we are indeed, in the case of the claimed license (ie: we
>> can hold $name as responsible for a false claim of such a license).
>> But, considering this, the copyright holder name isn't mandatory to
>> distribute said software (unless the license mandates listing the
>> authors or copyright holders).
>>
>> If the above isn't logic, please explain why.
>
> You seem to argue that names of copyright holders are optional because
> they are optional.
All I'm saying, is that copyright holder information / author list is
mandatory if the license mandates it. The case of an anonymous author
shows we've accepted software in Debian without a copyright holder.
> What we need is not only license. From Debian Policy § 12.5:
>
>> Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
>> information and distribution license in the file
>> /usr/share/doc/package/copyright.
>
> We also need copyright information.
I failed to see the part where the Debian Policy § 12.5 mandates a
copyright holder list. All it mention is "copyright information" which
is more vague than a copyright holder list + license text. Either way
(yours or mine), this needs clarifying in the policy. Such clarification
would help a lot to ask upstream to follow a (clearer) policy, which so
far I of course failed to request because it's a blurred area (see what
Jeremy wrote in this thread).
> Reason we need copyright information, is because only a license granted
> by the copyright holders is of use to us.
I still don't understand why. I understand why it's a re-assurance that
the shipped license is correct, but I don't see why otherwise.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: