On 12/20/2017 10:31 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-12-19 22:01:52) >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>>> What if the author is anonymous then? >>> Then who granted the license? >> >> the anonymous author. > > Ok. Then (assuming the source mentions only that anonymous _author_ not > who claims to hold _copyright_) you document in debian/copyright that a) > you assume copyright holder to be the stated author, and b) that the > copyright holder is anonymous. > > ...and see where that leads... > > > - Jonas
Back to square one, this was to demonstrate that we do *NOT* need the copyright holder name. The only thing we really need is to make sure about the license of the software. Having a copyright holder name is only *helping* to make sure that we are indeed, in the case of the claimed license (ie: we can hold $name as responsible for a false claim of such a license). But, considering this, the copyright holder name isn't mandatory to distribute said software (unless the license mandates listing the authors or copyright holders). If the above isn't logic, please explain why. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
