On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:36:24 +0900 Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote: > On the other hand, imagine a package that consists in a collection of files > that were harvested by an upstream curator. For instance a collection of icons. > In that case, if you have the time and the motivation, it can be nice to the > authors to keep their contributions clearly separated. Good point, thanks Charles. I'd forgotten about packages like that. Most "program" upstreams tend to be a team in some loose meaning of the term and can therefore have a "collective" element. Collated packages are slightly different. However, even then, separate attribution is not mandatory, just something that is nice to do if it isn't too much of a burden on the maintainer. (Imagine a collated package with hundreds of icons from a collection of "teams" - there isn't any point in drilling down into the attribution within those teams.) > Debian is currently seeking legal advice to decide how far the factorisation > can go. In the meantime, I would suggest to browse packages.debian.org for > packages of similar size and field, and take example from their copyright > files. Since they were accepted in our main archive, they tell what is expected > for new packages. Absolutely. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp0PReznPeUY.pgp
Description: PGP signature