Bug#678607: Reporting 1.2K crashes
- To: 678607@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#678607: Reporting 1.2K crashes
- From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:24:30 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20130629232430.GA31636@falafel.plessy.net>
- Reply-to: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>, 678607@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <87bo6o6gmi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- References: <CAF1AS2gDiJKUr3-GVX8gF9jKyw-VQtRmM0Y000eny=1rBw4NJA@mail.gmail.com> <20130627220755.GA12902@falafel.plessy.net> <CAFX5sbxoXuJyoM80O3mj2XOm+9t-BBdVP_jEVNhLYuoquPNXDQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130628094722.GK13293@an3as.eu> <CAKTje6GzWwQ28i7YCyTaOXBSBV1sJHgHfhxa0-NHbcd8xN=a7g@mail.gmail.com> <878v1t1w54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20130629025026.GA13628@scru.org> <87wqpdzkc1.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20130629154809.GA2278@scru.org> <87bo6o6gmi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
> Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> writes:
>
> > I see some value in distinguishing between upstream contact points for
> > problems with the software (bugs and such) and upstream contact points
> > for licensing issues (such as restoration of rights after a GPL-2
> > violation). debian/copyright seems like the logical place for the
> > latter but not the former.
Le Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 09:12:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Yeah, I agree. (And sorry about being grumpy last night.) Or, to
> elaborate a bit, I think debian/copyright currently collects all the
> information that people need about the licensing, including the
> information required to verify the license with upstream. That's why we
> have the provenance (so that you know exactly what is included in the
> package and where it came from, including anything excluded due to
> licensing), the upstream URL and name (so that you can find the same code
> again directly from upstream to verify the licensing if needed), and the
> upstream authors (so that you can reach them directly with questions about
> licensing).
How about simply replacing "should name the original authors" by "should
provide contact information for license questions" ?
I think that there is value to correct this point even if we can not define
precisely what should or must be in the Debian copyright file as a whole.
Have a nice Sunday,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: