Hi Jonas, This is a very interesting discussion, it's IMO important to have it.
On 12/23/2017 02:45 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> 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. > > You seem to argue that names of copyright holders are optional because > they are optional. All I'm saying, is that copyright holder information / author list is mandatory if the license mandates it. The case of an anonymous author shows we've accepted software in Debian without a copyright holder. > What we need is not only license. From Debian Policy § 12.5: > >> Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright >> information and distribution license in the file >> /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. > > We also need copyright information. I failed to see the part where the Debian Policy § 12.5 mandates a copyright holder list. All it mention is "copyright information" which is more vague than a copyright holder list + license text. Either way (yours or mine), this needs clarifying in the policy. Such clarification would help a lot to ask upstream to follow a (clearer) policy, which so far I of course failed to request because it's a blurred area (see what Jeremy wrote in this thread). > Reason we need copyright information, is because only a license granted > by the copyright holders is of use to us. I still don't understand why. I understand why it's a re-assurance that the shipped license is correct, but I don't see why otherwise. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
