Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > In practice, that means: > > * explicit, unambiguous statements of which parties hold copyright in > the work (this is so that interested parties can at least attempt to > verify if our claim meets the copyright holder's understanding of > the granted license), and when that copyright begins (this is so > that the reader can know when the work will no longer be restricted > by copyright, on the theory that copyrights expire). In other words, > full UCC-style copyright statements including full years and legal > entity names.
What if there is no such notice in the upstream source? It's not required by any legal jurisdiction that matters to Debian so far as I know, so it's not unreasonable for upstream to not bother. > * explicit, unambiguous text from the copyright holder granting > license, and the specific extent of that license within the work as > distributed in Debian (i.e. what files are covered by the grant). > > * the exact license terms granted by the copyright holder in the > covered part of the work, or a reference to those terms in > /usr/share/common-licenses/. I agree with those. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you don't think that the FSF address needs to be in the copyright file either, correct? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
