Re: Advise about missing copyright info

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> 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
in Debian.

-- 
 \              "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does |
  `\                                       knowledge." —Charles Darwin |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney