On 03/02/14 19:43, Daniel Pocock wrote:
One risk of not having this extra field is that we could accumulate
excessive things in the Copyright field. E.g. some packagers may be
including the names of contributors as if they are copyright holders
because they are afraid their package will be
Package: debian-policy
Author and copyright holder are not always the same person/entity.
E.g. the work may be authored by Bob but the copyright is assigned to
his employer Acme, Inc, e.g.
License: GPL2
Copyright: 2014, Acme, Inc http://acme.example.org
Author: Bob, http://example.org/bob
For
severity 737559 wishlist
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 737559 = normative issue
quit
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
Author and copyright holder are not always the same person/entity.
[...]
License: GPL2
Copyright: 2014, Acme, Inc http://acme.example.org
Author: Bob,
On 03/02/14 20:17, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
severity 737559 wishlist
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 737559 = normative issue
quit
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
Author and copyright holder are not always the same person/entity.
[...]
License: GPL2
Copyright: 2014,
On 03/02/14 20:55, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Daniel Pocock wrote:
I've only come across one package which included public-domain material
so far. In this case, I put a note about the author in the comments.
Yep - that works, too.
[...]
One risk of not having this extra field is that we
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes:
There are cases where I would have used it and I believe that
recognising people's work (even if they have assigned their rights) is
an important way of showing our thanks and acknowledgment to those who
develop free software, and having a dedicated
On 03/02/14 21:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes:
There are cases where I would have used it and I believe that
recognising people's work (even if they have assigned their rights) is
an important way of showing our thanks and acknowledgment to those who
7 matches
Mail list logo
