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

Re: Pending uploads

-=| Julian Mehnle,  3.08.2007 11:59 |=-
> Since the DPG is no legal entity, it cannot hold copyright.

But is is composed of individuals who do, no?

> I'd prefer not to set up a general rule about noting packaging copyright.  

Note that I push towards including both copyright *and* license there.
There already is such a suggestion, by Ganneff in

> What kinds of (legal) problems do you expect to actually arise, anyway?  
> Can you give an example?

I don't have any real problems in my mind, but IANAL. I just prefer to
play on the safe side.

Fresh sample - libemail-localdelivery-perl is created by Niko and Gregor
wants to change something in the packaging. Is he allowed to do so?
I am pretty confident that Niko does not mind this, of course, but IMHO
these things are better explicitly stated.

I guess the need of explicit packaging license is more obvious for
"normal" packages where the packaging work is not trivial. Imagine
maintainer change. Is new maintainer allowed to change the packaging it
there is no licensing?

I think there's no reason to consider DPG-maintained packages different
to "normal" ones in this regard.
dam            JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: