On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:54:24 +1000 Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Matthias Julius <li...@julius-net.net> writes: > > > It is exactly what you would get if someone would merge the three > > files into one. Suddenly, the copyright statements cover the whole of > > the contents of all three files and you couldn't knwow anymore what is > > by whom. Would the copyright statement be less true? > > But, in the proposed scenario, that *hasn't happened*. How is it a > useful preservation of information to falsely assume that an event has > occurred when writing ‘debian/copyright’, or to ignore the distinction > of whether it has or not? Because it's a useless waste of time to make a spurious distinction where none needs to exist. The files have been collated into one whole - the source tarball. Unless the files are under different licences, there is no reason to subdivide the copyright statements. Collation is desirable, subject only to differences between licences. There is no useful purpose in subdividing the copyright statements in debian/copyright - anyone who wants that information needs to Read The Source. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgpvUlvLS75Ex.pgp
Description: PGP signature
