I'm sorry if I'm being annoying with this thing, but I'm trying to
really understand the issue here.

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:49, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
>>>> We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we
>>>> already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres
>>>> Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)?
>>> Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document
>>> that.
>>> Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part,
>>> but the story is.  Do not explain to me, but to the world.
>> Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness.
>> The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years
>> and names are a different matter.
> They go together: Only the copyright holder can rightfully grant a license.
>  So if copyright holders are not properly accounted for, licensing is bogus!

So your point is that, if we do not know exactly who wrote what, we
need to find out a way to make sure all contributors have made the
software available under the advertised license?


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to