ignoring autotool in debian/copyright?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

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[1], but those involve only stuff that gets shipped in binary 
> packages (because the source is already documented by itself. 
> Otherwise, it would be undistributable).
> 
> [1] 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 
"disrespectful".

Does it make sense now?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20111202/a697032f/attachment-0001.pgp>