On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:51:51PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > 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 seconded
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature