[SCM] specimen/master: Updated copyright file to rev.166
mira.mikes at gmail.com
Sat Feb 19 01:02:26 UTC 2011
2011/2/19 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28:50PM +0100, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> 2011/2/18 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at 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
>> <ninjadroid at 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
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers