I would like to see this bug fixed because there can be no doubt that
the 'original' in "original authors" is ambiguous.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:50:41PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Here's a strawman illustrating what I think the sentence meant to say.
> [...]
I'm not sure why Jonathan thinks his patch is a strawman. It addresses
the main issue of this bug. I don't think the explanation of what an
upstream contact is needs to be relegated to a footnote. So I am
seeking seconds for the following patch, which uses Jonathan's wording:
diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml
index ce5960b..725a951 100644
--- a/policy.xml
+++ b/policy.xml
@@ -11777,8 +11777,12 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY</programlisting>
</para>
<para>
In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
- sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
- authors.
+ sources (if any) were obtained, and should include a name or
+ contact address for the upstream authors. This can be the
+ name of an individual or an organization, an email address, a
+ web forum or bugtracker, or any other means to unambiguously
+ identify who to contact to participate in the development of
+ the upstream source code.
</para>
<para>
Packages in the <emphasis>contrib</emphasis> or
--
Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature