Matthias Julius <[email protected]> writes: > In the light of the recent discussion about debian/copyright on -devel > I am wondering how verbose it actually needs to be. Given the > following files: > > Files: foo.c > Copyright: 2006 Mr. X > License: GPL2+ > > Files: bar.c > Copyright: 2008 Mr. X > License: GPL2+ > > Files: baz.c > Copyright: 2005 Mr. Y > License: GPL2+ > > This would be the most explicit form preserving the exact copyrights > for each file.
It's also the one that makes a copyright claim compatible with what the original source claims. > Would it be acceptable to condense this to: > > Files: foo.c > bar.c > Copyright: 2006, 2008 Mr. X > License: GPL2+ > > Files: baz.c > Copyright: 2005 Mr. Y > License: GPL2+ > > or even further to: > > Files: *.c > Copyright: 2006, 2008 Mr. X > Copyright: 2005 Mr. Y > License: GPL2+ Neither of these are true statements of the copyright; you have *altered* the copyright claim so that it now makes a false claim (e.g., you now state that ‘bar.c’ is “Copyright 2006 Mr. X”, which is contrary to what the original source claims). I don't think it's acceptable to make false copyright claims in the ‘debian/copyright’ file. -- \ “Are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think so, | `\ Brain, but if Jimmy cracks corn, and no one cares, why does he | _o__) keep doing it?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
