(Now including debian-policy; this bears on how to interpret §12.5 w.r.t. changing the FSF's address in an upstream license grant.)
Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > Le Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 05:37:08PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > If we distribute a package with ‘debian/copyright’ so that it > > deliberately differs from upstream in this regard, are we not > > violating policy §12.5 “Every package must be accompanied by a > > verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license in the > > file `/usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright'.”? > > I think that this paragraph refers to the full text of the licence, > for which [policy has an exception for the GPL version 2] that > allows debian/copyright to point only to /usr/share/common-licenses. […] > So I think that the GPL is a double exception. For the license that > are not listed in §12.5, the requirement of verbatim copy would > indeed disallow mending any contact address. Do you agree with Eduardo's argument below: Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <edua...@kalinowski.com.br> writes: > IANAL, but I don't think the address is part of the license. I > believe the address can be changed to reflect the correct > information, if the rest of the license information is kept. The address is part of the “you should have received a copy of the GPL, if not write to the FSF” text. Either that text is part of the text that must be in ‘debian/copyright’ verbatim, by policy; or it is not. If it is not required to be verbatim in ‘debian/copyright’, then why include it at all? On the other hand, if it *is* required to be in ‘debian/copyright’ verbatim, doesn't that preclude changing what it says before upstream makes the same change? -- \ “Buy not what you want, but what you need; what you do not need | `\ is expensive at a penny.” —Cato, 234-149 BC, Relique | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
