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

Re: License and copyright in description

On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:10:27AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> # 2.3.3. The description of a package
> # -----------------------------------
> #      Copyright statements and
> #      other administrivia should not be included either (that is what the
> #      copyright file is for).
> The description for lsh-utils begins:
> Description: A Secure Shell v2 (SSH2) protocol implementation -- server
>  lsh is GNU GPL'd implementation of the Secure Shell
>  protocol version 2 (SSH2). The SSH (Secure SHell) protocol
>  is a secure replacement for rlogin, rsh and rcp.

A copyright statement looks like:

	``Copyright (c) 2001 Anthony Towns''

If the license is particularly relevant to the package (as in the case of
ssh v lsh v ssh-nonfree), it's appropriate for the description.

So at this point, are people doing this specifically to annoy me, or what?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgp9uke8tQh2W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: