Re: Slashem licensing terms
Scripsit Jochen Voss <voss@seehuhn.de>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:36:05AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Yes. All authors who claim copyright in a source file should be
>> credited in the Debian copyright file, together with the exact
>> statement of license they issued.
> I tried to learn be looking at how you do this in your own packages.
> Some questions occured to me:
> 1) The debian/copyright file of slashem-0.0.7E6F3-4 contains
> the phrase
Slashem? Pretty please, try to stay with the assumption that I do not
maintain Slashem. I worked hard to make the DAM and NM people buy the
story that my Henning identity is a different person.
> Upstream Authors: Warren 'WACko' Cheung (wac@intergate.bc.ca)
> J. Ali Harlow (j_ali@users.sourceforge.net)
> and others.
> Is this (not explicitely mentioning all the authors) a bug, then?
Depends. If they are listed by name a copyright notice in the source,
they should be listed by name in debian/copyright - though not
necessarily in the overview "upstream authors" fiels.
> /* Copyright (c) Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1985. */
> /* NetHack may be freely redistributed. See license for details. */
> Shouldn't the last two lines of this be in the debian/copyright file?
The copyright notice probably should.
> Is the absence of these a bug?
Probably yes.
> 3. You may copy and distribute NetHack (or a portion or
> derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable
> form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you
> also do one of the following: ...
> Does this somehow magically imply the right to distribute slashem?
No, it non-magically implies the right to distribute Slashem (as far
as the Nethack authors are concerned) because Slashem is a derivate of
Nethack.
--
Henning Makholm "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation
which is different from that which the user had in mind."
Reply to: