[SCM] supercollider/master: Fixing FIXMEs in copyright file. Note: the fixes match up with changes I've made upstream, with the declarations clarified for minor release 3.4.4, out v soon.

[Dan S]

2011/6/13 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
> On 11-06-13 at 01:22pm, Dan S wrote:
>> 2011/6/13 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
>> > On 11-06-13 at 03:14am, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 22:40, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> Actually, for "*" the listing of "Copyright: 2002-2003, James
>> >> >> McCartney" is out of date. I would change it to "Copyright:
>> >> >> 2002-2011, James McCartney and others" - that OK? There are many
>> >> >> dozens of code contributors so I hope "others" is not too weird.
>> >> >
>> >> > "others" is not a legal entity.
>> >> >
>> >> > What needs to be listed in Files sections is the actual copyright
>> >> > holders, not all contributors.
>> >>
>> >> There is not full consensus around this idea. If one can be
>> >> reasonably sure that the work is under the listed license, my
>> >> personal take on the subject is that one lists all the copyright
>> >> holders on a best effort basis. It can perfectly be possible,
>> >> especially with large and relatively old packages, that names are
>> >> forgotten/lost. That doesn't mean the package is not fit for debian
>> >> because the copyright file cannot list all copyright holders.
>> >>
>> >> In other words, I believe it is acceptable to put "others" in the
>> >> Files sections, when filling the complete list is too hard.
>> >
>> > I did not write that all others need to be documented.
>> >
>> > On the contrary, when those others are contributors without holding
>> > copyright, I believe they need not be listed.
>>
>> OK. This can be implemented simply by using the names given in the
>> copyright statements, as has been done in the package at present.
>> However, there are quite a few contributors who have made
>> contributions of sufficient complexity (etc) to claim copyright, but
>> who didn't bother to change the copyright notices. Should I ignore
>> them, or what? I could say "it's their fault for not claiming their
>> copyright" but at least in my country (UK) you don't need to claim
>> copyright in order to have it, so in a sense I should attribute them
>> even if they forgot to attribute themselves.
>>
>> To be honest, I guess it's probably OK as-is (without "others"),
>> though it does feel a little unrepresentative.
>
> That is new info to me, and changes the game!
>
> As Debian maintainer, when you are well aware that additional copyright
> holders exist then they should be properly listed in debian/copyright.
>
> Best way to do that is to convince upstream (i.e. yourself with another
> hat on) to explicitly list all copyright holders as such in headers of
> corresponding code files.
>
> There are (sub-optimal!) alternatives.  One is to only list them in
> debian/copyright (i.e. not bother as upstream - affecting other
> distributors).  Another is as upstream to summarize in README or
> CONTRIBUTORS or AUTHORS or similar, and as Debian maintainer copy that
> chunk into debian/copyright.
>
> I do not consider it acceptable for Debian distribution to just list
> some copyright holders as "...and others".  Feel free to disagree with
> me - I am not the law here, just very interested in perfecting these
> texts, to most properly honour those contributing to the FLOSS world.
> You can consult debian-legal@ or you can take your chances and hope
> ftpmasters do not spot the issues and block based on it.

That's fine - grateful for your opinion. SuperCollider does have an
AUTHORS file (44 entries), which I think represents certainly the
majority of copyright-holders very well. Shall I use that for the "*"
rule, do you think? It feels appropriate to me.

Dan


> Regards,
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
>