On 2010-08-17 18:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> It was just a suggestion (or, really, a recommendation), not a
> requirement (for you as upstream).
> We (Debian) do need, however, to make sure that upstream copyright
> claims and licensing permissions are properly identified.
> If the file headers do not (in our understanding of legal requirements
> for *redistributors* - not for *upstreams*) contain clear statements of
> both copyright and licensing, then we will need a written statement from
> those authors stating clearly the info we need.
> This also, as I see it, implies that if e.g. a README file in the
> topmost directory of the upstream tarball claims that this project is
> Copyright authors A, B and C, but one file claims Copyright author D,
> then file takes presedence over README, and if then that file cannot be
> parsed reliably regarding *both* copyright and licensing, then that file
> is deemed unsatifiably licensed for redistribution.

thanks for the hint.
i noticed that upstream's README.txt includes several more authors,
which do not appear in any source file and definitely not (yet) in

> You are free to not want to improve clarity of upstream copyright and
> licensing, but you risk some distributors then choosing not to want to
> redistribute your fine code.

just for the sake of completeness, i want to point out that pd-zexy has
been distributed in Debian and derivatives for more than 5 years.
the copyright did not seem to be such an issue until know.

this however can only mean that nobody had a look so close as you guys.
upstream is happy about that close inspection and will incorporate
changes based on the suggestion on this list in the next upstream release.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to