On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:43:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
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?


If, as I understand from you, we are unable to get an explicit statement from upstream who is copyright holders of all parts of their distributed sources, then we should do the second best of listing who it might be, and documenting why the information is vague - and we should then discuss with debian-le...@lists.debian.org if such info is acceptable.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to