Le samedi 16 juillet 2011 13:24:47, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : > * Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> [110715 22:18]: > > For the former (license upgrades), the Debian maintainer should also > > patch the source files to make the change, right? If that's done, > > then I agree that it seems reasonable. > > > > For the latter (license explanation), I also agree it's reasonable. > > "A verbatim copy" has always been a somewhat problematic phrase > > because in practice it's not the words that matter but the meaning. > > When describing the license of binaries, of course it is more valuable > > to document the actual license the user has than the separate licenses > > of the components used to build it. > > I think the "verbatim" is extremly important. Meaning is always a matter > of interpretation and no maintainer can claim to have a perfect > understanding. Misunderstanding and changing something out of a wrong > understanding is very similar to willfully misinterpreting the author's > wishes and permissions. Similar enough that in the end a judge has to > decide what it was. > > You should never change what is in source files. If you think it is > important you can amend it. (Like: "Due to licenses in other files, > your only option here is <this and that option/license/whatever>" > or "The README also grants the following rights: ..." or so on). > > Also the debian/copyright should always contain the verbatim grant of > the license. If that points to additional material, it might not be > necessary to include ineffective/unused parts this points to, but > at least the license grant itself should be there as verbatimly > as possible[1]. > If anything is unclear, make it clear and give the additional > information, but do not make it look like it is what the author wrote, > unless it is what the author wrote. What about fixing possible oudated address like the address of the FSF? > > > debian/copyright describes the license users get, while "egrep -R -e > > (opyright|icense|ublic)" in the source package gives the upstream > > granted license. So I think we're doing fine on that front. :) > > We are no legal entity that can protect our users against any claims, > our users face the problems if there are any, so they should be able > to make an informed decision from looking at debian/copyright. > And not be mislead to think everything is fine just because we thought > it is and thought it would be a clever idea to hide any discrepancies > away. > > Bernhard R. Link > > [1] Exceptions are usually removal of indendation/comment characters/ > line splitting, deduplication and things like that. Even for the > common (and for readability quite important) consolidation of copyright > statements with different years I'd not be suprised if there are same > lawyers out there advising against ist.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.