Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@canonical.com> writes: > Clarify what is meant by "verbatim copy of its copyright and > distribution license" to be explicit about what Debian has always > required for this file, to put to rest the silly arguments that this > should be parsed as "(copyright and distribution) license".
I'm discussing it on debian-devel precisely because I want to know *which* interpretation is the project's understanding. I don't think a fiat “clarification” to Policy is justified without that. > If someone wants to argue that Policy should *not* require reproducing > the copyright notices when this is not required by the license, let > them argue that Policy should be changed rather than wrongly claiming > it's not a Policy requirement. When raising the issue here in the past, I've been told (most recently, by Russ) to discuss it on debian-devel first, to get the position of the ftpmasters, before asking for such a change. Please, don't try to short-circuit the discussion that's been requested. -- \ “A celebrity is one who is known by many people he is glad he | `\ doesn't know.” —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
