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? -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers