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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to