(Please follow the Debian mailing list code of conduct. I didn't ask for personal copies of messages also sent to the list.)
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Ben Finney: > > If not, this does appear to me to be a policy bug. Such a bug must > > be fixed either by removing the package from Debian or by getting > > a clear, correct statement of copyright for the work from the > > copyright holder, and recording that in 'debian/copyright'. > > Usually, it's argued on this list I'm presuming "this list" refers to debian-legal, as opposed to the other list in this discussion. > that a requirement for precise > information on the copyright holder fails the Dissident Test. I've not seen the Dissident test applied that way. The Dissident test applies to whether the *recipient* of the work can exercise their freedoms, including the freedom to modify and/or redistribute, without being forced to personally identify themselves. The *copyright holder* can't expect to remain anonymous and still be identified as the copyright holder. (Copyright laws might nevertheless assert that an anonymous entity can hold copyright, but that's beside the point here.) I don't see that the Dissident test applies to the copyright holder (as opposed to recipients of the work), nor that it's non-free to require the copyright holder to be personally identifiable. > (SCNR) Hopefully you also see the distinction as I do. -- \ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, | `\ Brain, but isn't a cucumber that small called a gherkin?" -- | _o__) _Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
