On Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:36:57 -0700 Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> wrote: > Hello Scott, > > On Thu 26 Mar 2020 at 03:01PM -04, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:31:31 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> 4. License requires copyright notice but doesn't specify anything about > >> source or binary (didn't look for an example, but I can totally see this > >> happening): I think this case is unclear with your revised wording. With > >> the current policy wording copyright notices would be required in > >> debian/copyright and I think that's correct. The current wording does seem > >> harsh, so it could probably be better while not leaving an ambiguity. > > > > Here's a specific example I am looking at in New: > > > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in >> all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > I agree with you that in such a case we would want the copyright notices > in d/copyright, but I disagree that my text leaves any room for doubt. > > The text you quote would seem clearly to "require that copyright > information be included in all binary distributions". > > Perhaps you could suggest an amendation to my text so I can better see > what you mean about ambiguity.
Is a compilation a copy? Literally, it's not. It's a transformation based on the original, but the original is not there, so it's not a 'copy'. Currently, in the last paragraph, you are suggesting: "... when the license requires that copyright information be included in all binary distributions." As an alternative, I'd suggest: "... when the license requires that copyright information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions." Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
