> Clint Adams <cl...@debian.org> writes: > > > I see some value in distinguishing between upstream contact points for > > problems with the software (bugs and such) and upstream contact points > > for licensing issues (such as restoration of rights after a GPL-2 > > violation). debian/copyright seems like the logical place for the > > latter but not the former.
Le Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 09:12:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > Yeah, I agree. (And sorry about being grumpy last night.) Or, to > elaborate a bit, I think debian/copyright currently collects all the > information that people need about the licensing, including the > information required to verify the license with upstream. That's why we > have the provenance (so that you know exactly what is included in the > package and where it came from, including anything excluded due to > licensing), the upstream URL and name (so that you can find the same code > again directly from upstream to verify the licensing if needed), and the > upstream authors (so that you can reach them directly with questions about > licensing). How about simply replacing "should name the original authors" by "should provide contact information for license questions" ? I think that there is value to correct this point even if we can not define precisely what should or must be in the Debian copyright file as a whole. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130629232430.ga31...@falafel.plessy.net
