2011/2/19 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > 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. > > Ok. > > >>> 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.
Actually I didn't try to contact Pete Bessman. But you are right it doesn't make a sense to keep as "upstream contact" somebody who left project. Current maintainer is more appropriate. Hmmm ... I will keep just Eric as upstream contact ... Do you agree? Thank you for your comments mira _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers