[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 05:28pm, Dan S wrote:
>> 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 McCartney" is out of date.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.
>
> It does not feel appropriate to me to only list "the majority".  The
> majority of contributors, sure, but IMO Debian packaging needs all
> copyright holders.

Fair enough - it gives me a nudge to update the AUTHORS file upstream
too, since we've had new developers joining. I've pushed an update
with all copyright holders.

Dan