NOTE: The packages I am talking about are not debianised (yet) and contain non-free code. If that disqualifies me from asking that's too bad but this is as good a place to ask as I could find.
I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the *binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built and distributed by others are not to be covered by this copyright claim. Now this strikes my as pretty off-the-wall and impractical, but I am wondering whether anyone knows of "prior art" in this area. If you can come up with good reasons NOT to include such a copyright notice, by all means let me know because I would be much happier without yet another licence/copyright wart on our packages. # I've got to convince proprietary software licence/copyright law # veterans that have not the foggiest idea about FLOSS, it seems. Thanks in advance, -- Olaf Meeuwissen EPSON KOWA Corporation, PF1 FSF Associate Member #1962 sign up at http://member.fsf.org/ GnuPG key: 6BE37D90/AB6B 0D1F 99E7 1BF5 EB97 976A 16C7 F27D 6BE3 7D90 Penguin's lib! -- I hack, therefore I am -- LPIC-2
