Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:39:35PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > A little time after DebConf excitement has calmed down, I would > > still like to see answers, in the public record, from the ftpmasters > > on this issue. > > I am not an ftp master, but I think this follows from a > straightforward set of principles:
Thanks for your response. (I am still very interested to get the ftpmasters to join this discussion with their positions.) > - Policy requires reproduction of the copyright notices for a work > in debian/copyright. This point in particular I don't think is clear. It has been argued several times in the past that it is the copyright *license* that is important, and needs to be reproduced in the package ‘copyright’ file. Especially in combination with your later points (that the copyright notices can't be “corrected”, which I take to imply that aggregation and re-phrasing of the notices is also verboten), there seems to be little point reproducing the verbatim copyright *notices*, especially since they're all in the source regardless. Either that, or there *is* benefit and justification for aggregating and re-phrasing copyright notices, not just verbatim duplication, when putting the extra copies in the package ‘copyright’ file. -- \ 德不孤、必有鄰。 (The virtuous are not abandoned, they | `\ shall surely have neighbours.) | _o__) —孔夫子 Confucius, 551 BCE – 479 BCE | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
