Re: debian/copyright verbosity

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Matthias Julius <lists@julius-net.net> writes:

> In the light of the recent discussion about debian/copyright on -devel
> I am wondering how verbose it actually needs to be.  Given the
> following files:
> 
>  Files: foo.c
>  Copyright: 2006 Mr. X
>  License: GPL2+
> 
>  Files: bar.c
>  Copyright: 2008 Mr. X
>  License: GPL2+
> 
>  Files: baz.c
>  Copyright: 2005 Mr. Y
>  License: GPL2+
> 
> This would be the most explicit form preserving the exact copyrights
> for each file.

It's also the one that makes a copyright claim compatible with what the
original source claims.

>  Would it be acceptable to condense this to:
> 
>  Files: foo.c
>         bar.c
>  Copyright: 2006, 2008 Mr. X
>  License: GPL2+
> 
>  Files: baz.c
>  Copyright: 2005 Mr. Y
>  License: GPL2+
> 
> or even further to:
> 
>  Files: *.c
>  Copyright: 2006, 2008 Mr. X
>  Copyright: 2005 Mr. Y
>  License: GPL2+

Neither of these are true statements of the copyright; you have
*altered* the copyright claim so that it now makes a false claim (e.g.,
you now state that ‘bar.c’ is “Copyright 2006 Mr. X”, which is
contrary to what the original source claims).

I don't think it's acceptable to make false copyright claims in the
‘debian/copyright’ file.

-- 
 \          “Are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think so, |
  `\    Brain, but if Jimmy cracks corn, and no one cares, why does he |
_o__)                           keep doing it?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney