Bug#65577: Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution

[Taketoshi Sano <kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>]

Hi.

 On "Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:04:02 -0400",
  Brian Mays <brian@debian.org> wrote:

> > Do you think that "All the packages in the other sections" should be
> > also modified to "All the packages in non-free or contrib sections" ?
> 
> No.  Not really.

OK, I see.

> > What I wish to see is more explanation for users. Many ordinary users
> > are not specialists in license. In many cases, they may not understand
> > the meaning of a license correctly when they are just told "read the
> > license by yourself". We can explain what is the problem briefly for
> > them, I hope.
> 
> As long as we are not attempting to interpret the license for them, I
> suppose that this is okay.  Personally, I think that we should limit our
> "explanations" to a brief comment about why we think that the license
> fails to meet the DFSG (for non-free) or which non-free package the
> package causes the package to be consigned to "contrib".

I think that we should provide explanations about "our" stance,
in the form of "a brief comment" what you wrote above.

> I really don't think that we should be commenting on the license other
> than that.  For one thing, if we start commenting on licenses, we're
> likely to (unintentionally) upset or offend somebody.  Furthermore,
> it is easy to conceive of a maintainer misinterpreting a license and
> explaining it incorrectly.  We don't want to be in that position.

Well, I can understand what you care about, and I agree with you here.

Thanks for your comment and suggestions.
-- 
  Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>