On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:41:00 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Felipe Sateler (2017-12-19 14:20:42) >> Sometimes the license requires listing the copyright holders. In those >> cases, the list of holders must be present in the copyright file. In >> the rest, there is no need to list them. Only the license matters. >> >> .oO( should the copyright file be renamed to license to avoid this >> eternal discussion? ) > > Tracking copyright holders is an essential prerequisite for tracking > licensing, because only a license granted by the copyright holder(s) of > a work is of any use to us (and our users).
I suspect you are setting an impossibly high bar for determining the license of a work. We can (and do) rely on upstream telling us the truth when they say the work is of a certain license, and that contributions from third parties have been accepted under that license. If what you say were true, no non-trivial piece of software would be distributable. Is your copyright credited on all the packages where you have submitted patches? There's plenty of software in the archive where there is uncredited copyright, and that is not a problem because the contribution was made under a given license. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
