On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28:50PM +0100, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
2011/2/18 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: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 section Files. 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.
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.
Please note then, that in the header you should not list the _author_ but the upstream preferred _contact_ - so if upstream is not reachable I guess it is better to either skip it or mention a note stating that.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers