[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders


On Samstag, 21. März 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.
> 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< -----
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
> accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders.
> 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< -----
> I am looking for seconds.

seconded. Though I would appreciate if it would clarify that debian/copyright 
still needs to be present and list the licence and *should try to* list all 

And/but I'm confused now, can you really propose a GR proposal and immediatly 
look for seconds, isnt there a need for a discussion period first? (I thought 
so and thats why I've not seconded Jörgs "GR enhancement proposal"... but I'm 
too lazy to dig up policy now, sorry 'bout that.)

> If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> title, especially...

actually, <87r60rgco4.fsf@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> was what convinced 

Quoting Manoj here:
>       The verbatim copy of the programs source code have the copyright
> notice, so we meet that. Breinging that into this discussion is a red
> herring, and derails discussion on what is required in  debian/copyright;
> nothing in the GPL ever requires a debian/copyright file at all.
>        Trust me. Lots of people in the world distribute programs, and
> they often do not have debian/copyright files. 

Thinking about it, I also would want policy patches to vote upon. Or is that a 
bad idea?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: