Re: Question Regarding Copyright
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:48:26PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 04:01:50PM -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Frank Lichtenheld<djpig@debian.org> wrote:
> >> AFAIK, this is correct yes. Copyright is established without needing
> >> to explicetly claim it.
>
> >But as mentioned in our case, the author simply doesn't *want* to put
> >the copyright statement clearly, so unless we can effectively say that
> >the information from the upstream Changes file is sufficient, then we
> >have to include the e-mail (and author's response) as a rationale for
> >the copyright line. Unfortunately then, the e-mail is a bit long,
>
> This is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong):
>
> * licensing needs to be included _verbatim_ in copyright file and
> shipped with all binary packages
> * proof of licensing if lacking from upstream source, e.g. email,
> needs to be included verbatim in copyright file
>
> * copyright info need to be included as well, but not necessarily
> verbatim
> * proof of copyright if lacking from upstream source, e.g. email,
> need not be included verbatim in copyright file, but can
> (preferrably, as it is not strictly required at all) be either a)
> included in copyright file, b) included in separate file or c)
> included only in source package in separate file
That's a good approximation of what I tried to say, yeah. But let me
stress two things:
* As always context matters. So e.g. if the name of the upstream author
doesn't appear anywhere in the upstream code I would treat that
differently as if there is a changelog with the name in it but
no explicit copyright statements
* I haven't dealt with this problem yet (IIRC) so I'm just expressing
my personal, initial opinions here. Discussion with other members of
the ftp team or others can of course change that at any time.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: