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

Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)

On Jan 25, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I think it is even misleading. The major parts of Debian are not by
> Debian or SPI, but by other folks like GNU and Linus.  We should
> probably refer to the individual copyright notices instead.

The remainder of /etc/motd implies this, by referring the reader to

Perhaps a better phrasing would be:

Most of the programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system were
originally written by people outside the project, but are freely
redistributable; the authorship and exact distribution terms for each
program should be described in the individual files named
/usr/share/doc/*/copyright or /usr/doc/*/copyright.

In any event, U.S. law at least acknowledges the concept of a
"collection copyright."  To cite another example: M$ claims copyright
for Windows, even though significant parts of Windows are copyrighted
at least in part by others (Intel [Defrag], UC-Berkeley [TCP/IP
networking commands], etc.)  So I think we are well within our rights
to claim copyright over our work, which is in assembling and
maintaining the distribution as a whole.

|        Chris Lawrence        |             The Linux/m68k FAQ             |
|   <quango@watervalley.net>   |   http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/faq.html   |
|                              |                                            |
|     Open Directory Editor    |   Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5:   |
|       http://dmoz.org/       |   <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*>   |

Reply to: