On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:08:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> writes: > > > We know that "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders". > > Debian-policy uses "should" for the "authors" and "must" for the > > "copyright information". > > I don't agree with this interpretation of Debian Policy, and I don't > follow it for my own packages.
That "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders" is simply a fact regardless of what debian-policy states. For example, the programmer who wrote some software can be the "author" and the company the programmer was working for can be the "copyright holder". Another example is an author who gives the copyright to the Free Software Foundation. That debian-policy uses "should" for the "authors" and "must" for the "copyright information" is also simply a fact. Quoting debian-policy: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile "must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information" "should name the original authors" So it is not clear to me where the different interpretation comes from. Feel free to propose a modification of debian-policy to remove "should name the original authors", but then please follow normal procedure for modifying debian-policy, and please don't relax current debian-policy on debian-mentors. > > > To be honest, Russ, and no disrespect meant, I'm surprised to see that > > someone from the Technical Committee and the Policy team goes so lightly > > over mixing "authors" and "copyright holders" and over the importance of > > "must" and "should" in debian-policy on debian-mentors. It is, in my > > opinion, better to stick to current debian-policy on debian-mentors, and > > to debate possible improvements of debian-policy elsewhere. > > I stepped in and replied in debian-mentors because I think your > interpretation of Policy as it is currently written is incorrect. See above. > The new > package is a substantial improvement over what's in the archive, Good reason to sponsor this package. > and the > standards to which you're holding it are not standards that we, in > general, are expecting of packages in the archive. Just following current debian-policy for this package. > It's certainly fine > for you to follow stricter standards in your own packages and ask for > stricter standards in packages you sponsor, Sponsors should, in my opinion, not ask for stricter standards. > but I'm willing to sponsor the > package as-is. The package as-is does not yet conform to current debian-policy. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623073734.gd32...@master.debian.org
