ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?
fsateler at debian.org
Thu Dec 1 19:25:27 UTC 2011
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 16:12, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> On 11-12-01 at 03:56pm, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 15:25, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> >> > I sure prefer if you are not lazy but instead respectful to those
>> >> > developers that put effort into inventing and maintaining a tool
>> >> > that is clearly good enough that you use it.
>> >> hmm, i don't think this is about not respecting the developers of
>> >> those great tools. even if i was "lazy and [...] treat it all as
>> >> [...] GPL-2+" there would be a copyright clause that acknowledges
>> >> the work.
>> > Respecting copyright is one thing. Respecting licensing is another.
>> Why do you suggest that respecting licensing involves putting stuff
>> into the copyright file? There are a few licenses that require
>> that, but those involve only stuff that gets shipped in binary
>> packages (because the source is already documented by itself.
>> Otherwise, it would be undistributable).
>>  More correctly, debian's approach to complying is putting the
>> stuff in the copyright file.
> Uhm, perhaps we are talking past each other here: In above I do not see
> the opposite of "respect" being "violation of license" but simply being
> Does it make sense now?
Mmm, a little bit. But then I fail to see how documenting the licenses
in the copyright file is showing respect to anyone. As I see it, the
copyright file is a technical document one must fill to comply with
licenses and document them in every binary package (because the source
is not available). Respect (and appreciation) is better shown by (as a
user) a kudos message to the developers, and (as debian maintainer)
maintaining a good relation and communication. I believe.
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers