Re: Advise about missing copyright info
Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> IMO, free software cannot force people to do the first item
> (maintain a clear copyright ownership path).
Agreed. I'm talking about what should be accepted in packages
distributed by Debian, not about forcing anyone to do anything.
> It's of course highly desirable, so that we have a less hard time in
> verifying the copyright status of work (should we need to do so, in
> order to check whether it is really free software). And the Debian
> Project could not feel safe enough in distributing packages with an
> unclear copyright ownership path: hence I think it's OK if the
> Project refuses to distribute anonymously (or pseudonymously)
> copyrighted packages.
That's what I'm arguing for, yes.
> Nonetheless, I *don't* think that *requiring*
> modifiers/redistributors to maintain a clear copyright ownership
> path is DFSG-free.
Agreed. This isn't about imposing restrictions on recipients; it's
about diligence for the copyright information of packages distributed
\ "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does |
`\ knowledge." —Charles Darwin |