Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> writes: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22:12AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >I think it's probably important to have the disclaimer because some > >licensors have tried to slip licence restrictions or liabilities into > >what they labelled as disclaimers; and it's useful to know the > >copyright holder in case it's one of the few that insists on > >particular interpretations of terms like "use".
I interpret MJ here as saying that it's useful to include the full text *in the discussion here on ‘debian-legal’*, and not commenting on whether it's appropriate for the ‘copyright’ file. Perhaps I'm wrong and MJ does intend to comment on the ‘copyright’ file contents. > I will now go through my (or "my" where team-maintained) 90+ packages > and make sure disclaimers are included. I don't think the disclaimer is part of the copyright license terms, so doesn't need to be in ‘copyright’. You certainly need to preserve it in the original upstream source files, of course! But I don't see the need to duplicate it. > ...oh, a related question: when including disclaimer of older > GPL-licenses then lintian complains that the address is wrong - but > isn't it wrong of us to "correct" that, as then the text is no longer > "verbatim"? Yes, you're right. If the copyright license is one that you think upstream has neglected to update, you should work with upstream to address that, and not change it on their behalf since you're not the copyright holder who granted the license. -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney
pgpOrLyK8vY7B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
