Hello Scott, On Thu 26 Mar 2020 at 03:01PM -04, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:31:31 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote: >> 4. License requires copyright notice but doesn't specify anything about >> source or binary (didn't look for an example, but I can totally see this >> happening): I think this case is unclear with your revised wording. With >> the current policy wording copyright notices would be required in >> debian/copyright and I think that's correct. The current wording does seem >> harsh, so it could probably be better while not leaving an ambiguity. > > Here's a specific example I am looking at in New: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all > copies or substantial portions of the Software. I agree with you that in such a case we would want the copyright notices in d/copyright, but I disagree that my text leaves any room for doubt. The text you quote would seem clearly to "require that copyright information be included in all binary distributions". Perhaps you could suggest an amendation to my text so I can better see what you mean about ambiguity. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature