Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

Hi Frank,

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:08:30AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:40:02PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:19:38PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > I'm
> > > going to upload the package in its current state:
> > > 
> > >   - When old file has no copyright/license information, only the new
> > >     copyright/license header added by Hubert is present.
> 
> After having a look at the issue I saw that those file actually have
> a reference to the AUTHORS file, which seems to be the place in TomBoy
> where the copyright for all those files is declared.

This was added recently, see:

  http://gitorious.org/projects/gnote/repos/mainline/commits/3a41801b8672333b199ffb14c12367be952745e9

didn't make it to the package I uploaded, though.

> I personally would
> guess probably fulfills the letter of law and license (but it is really only
> a guess at this point). I'm a bit unsure though why it was chosen to
> refer to the AUTHORS file instead of just including the copyright statement
> in the file right next to the new one, which would probably have avoided
> this whole discussion.

I think this is because for each given file, not every person listed in
AUTHORS has participated in it, so one can only guess (or track down each
contribution for each file).  Asserting copyright for more people than
actually wrote code is somewhat dangerous, so this looks like a way to
"err on the safe side".

> So pending a thorough review and without having seen the debian/copyright
> file, I currently see no reason not to allow this in Debian. I don't think
> that it contains any blatant lies about the copyright status of the work,
> even though I have the feeling it tries to avoid giving credit to
> the original authors any more than necessary. But that is a social issue
> and not a legal one.

I arranged debian/copyright to make it clear authorship & copyright are
shared with the original authors.  If you consider it necessary that this
clarification extends to upstream code, just let me know.  Although it can
be a PITA because upstream doesn't want to be bothered about this.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."