On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 05:23, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> 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?
> Almost.
> 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,

This is true.

> 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.

OK. I'll update debian/copyright with this info. It will be a brief
summary of the history page, and a list of all known contributors.


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to