2011/2/18 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:14:39PM +0100, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> 2011/2/18 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 07:40:26PM +0000,
>>>> +Upstream-Name: specimen
>>>> +Upstream-Contact: Pete Bessman <ninjadr...@gazuga.net>
>>>> + Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <e...@zhevny.com>
>>>> +Source: http://zhevny.com/specimen/downloads.html
>>>> +Copyright: 2005 Pete Bessman <ninjadr...@sgazuga.net>
>>>> +License: GPL-2+
>>> Are you certain you really want to declare header copyright+licensing?!?
>> Hi Jonas,
>> if it is not breaking any rules I would keep it.
> Why do you want to keep it?
> My question was (and still is) if you are aware what it is you declare?
header copyright+licensing is talking about source generally, what can
be redundant in this case,
coz all files have same copyright+licensing and they are declared in
But I like it this way , because this way can be applied to any kind
of package and
I like to have all packages with same copyright style if possible.
>> there is not any year for Eric who is current upstream maintainer.
>> Any idea which year I should give to his name? 2011? Or just keep it like
>> it is?
> I'd say be accurate - i.e. keep as-is if there is no more info, but also
> don't invent info that does not exist!
Of course I agree with this approach, that's what I'm trying to do :)
> Better yet: Contact upstream and ask for clarification. I believe that in
> some jurisdictions (particularly in the US) a legal disclaimer is not
> binding if it lacks years of claimed coverage. Upstream may appreciate a
> friendly notice on improvements to their legal hints.
This project is not developed for awhile and also original homepage
seems not exist (gazuga.net),
so contact original author (Pete Bessman <ninjadr...@gazuga.net>)
could be problematic,
but I can contact Eric, who is team member, if he has some suggestion
to this copyright file.
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list