-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Francesco, Charles and Kuno,
thank you very much for your helpful answers and clarifications! I didn't receive Kuno's original mail (maybe because there was no CC to me) but I hope that I got the relevant parts from the quoted paragraphs (his recommendation to use CC0 for debian/*). Cheers, Florian Am 01.12.2012 12:17, schrieb Francesco Poli: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:47:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > >> Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : >>> >>> P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for >>> the upstream files, but "(c) 1996-2012 by Thomas A. McGlynn" does not >>> look right, as long as the upstream work is really in the public domain >>> (which, as you probably know, means that the work is *not* subject to >>> copyright!)... >>> The machine-readable debian/copyright file format specification v1.0 >>> (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/) >>> is not too clear on this point, unfortunately... >>> Maybe you should ask on the debian-policy mailing list and suggest that >>> this topic should be clarified in the specification. >> >> Hi Francesco, > > Hi Charles! > >> >> the 1.0 specification mentions for the Copyright field: >> >> If a work has no copyright holder (i.e., it is in the public domain), that >> information should be recorded here. > > Yes, I had read that, but it didn't seem too clear to me. > > Since one of the "standard short names" for the License field is > "public-domain", I thought that specifying > > Copyright: public-domain > License: public-domain > [explanation of why the files are in the public domain...] > > was awkward and redundant. > > Hence, I wondered what should be put in the Copyright field when the > License field says "public-domain"... > >> >> Inspecting Debian copyright files from >> svn://anonscm.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ I see that many chose >> contents such as "none", "nobody", "public-domain", "not relevant", etc, >> which >> I think are good enough, given that the content of the Copyright field is >> free-form. > > OK, so maybe > > Copyright: none > License: public-domain > [explanation of why the files are in the public domain...] > > is the way to go. > > I just wish that the 1.0 specification were more explicit on this > point... > >> >> Have a nice week-end, > > The same to you, and thanks for your kind reply. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQvHF3AAoJEGXz/obPl241WEcQAJDALG3rV+psisOAA8Q51l9G 1088AZo9Y2VuQCxf282F8DmZjAay6tL2RwV5Z3hS/xyfSaUznoagLGf//JYR3LJ6 7Q3sFrjq9sWI90iIpmtNoQyQCupSt/kP0lsytXds3ZmlSM7Q/W9VfF0GvGbrA5nc wOLX+eFdLkCPe8K7m154a1/vDt8FNLAmY2FV6sjR6N1wx8Ltjm1lqTMam9cC+q3n Pik8WHouKIXO/VEpd6wLdYcu+fpVDkKc+2i5vCUtSAX9fsKz+ZDrLy7NSEIZOXXY LKHqYTYQ6/iZcUh+AOunuGYbrsw3TCCkce7mDvyilIFSKG3nL4pxhFR9aLKKUM3U Wm/2Vs8Y8h6xBnv14SHvkA7bjS4PVwoaFBt6Vs/QFaIkt6ODMQwYycmibxqhpbyO C7XYSF1ptCS2YEhUE7D6GwWkJ3Qm8COJPAIGx8U/8kGs3H8+Box4u6CpbrqFknF4 +d7vfAHH3UaS59vOboI1MpO/IkTKc+HEcH0PpDyCb/H3f70MprRkREyiiCW/7oMO iHPHvGPprvE1zBRBLPpDYGR02dNNLX+VMsIKv6wOw19W55eCs8IQt4mBIc38S5Tk HNxqg23UX7uaFCuT6rPSyxG+sApx/zjv8q67FYmVbhfGatPjH6Os7tbQPDUjbpXX a6ks1+WOreIKqIv9fs+i =pYuW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bc717b.8080...@ari.uni-heidelberg.de
