Re: Copyright and License Guidelines
> According to whom? Copyright is the backbone of the GPL. The license cannot be assigned if you do not have copyright. So actually this is backwards - the copyright is a must. The license makes a great deal of difference too, at least in terms of distribution.
I don't disagree with you -- however, the *statement* itself is not
required. If you write something and don't have any statement, the
Berne Convention means that you (the writer) automatically get
copyright on it. Just because you don't put a copyright statement on
something doesn't make it "Public Domain."
> The Contributor License Agreement is the wrong solution. The right solution is getting the right copyright throughout the package and honoring the copyright holder's wishes - not forcing them to abandon their copyright. Damyan's position is the right one, and the one consistent with Debian's history.
Doing what people have suggested, e.g. accepting patches with credit
but without copyright attribution is actually illegal according to the
Berne Convention, in the absence of that CLA.