Re: Inconsistent assertions about copyright notices
Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>> Have we reached any consensus otherwise? There's been some discussion,
>> but I've not seen anything definitive
> The discussions were rather one-sided, with one side (largely, me)
> presenting arguments that Policy should require copyright notices to be
> duplicated in the package copyright file, and all those arguments being
> countered — IMO, successfuly countered.
> In other words, I don't see any arguments left standing that Policy
> should require copyright notices in the package copyright file, and I no
> longer hold that position.
Well, the killer argument is that so far as I know ftp-master still
requires copyright statements. As long as that's the case, Policy should
reflect that. If we've convinced the ftp team to not require this, then
that's another matter, but I haven't seen any indication that that's the
case.
>> nor have I seen much analysis of the requirements around retaining
>> copyright notices that are imposed by some of the DFSG-free licenses.
> Complying with specific license terms isn't something that should be
> spelled out in Policy, in my view. Policy should mention in general that
> license requirements need to be followed, and it should not contradict
> those requirements, but that's as far as I think it should go.
I think enough people fail to realize that common licenses actually say
explicitly that the copyright notice must be preserved that it's worth
saying *something* about that, although I'm not trying to defend the
current wording.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: