Hi, 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 authors. 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 me. 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? regards, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.