Debian Bug report logs - #593533
debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:33:05 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Dear all,

in my experience with the new packages that I prepared, the FTP team is not
requesting that debian/copyright mentions the name of the Debian maintainers
who were involved in the initial packaging work. I therefore propose to align
the Policy on the current practice, and remove the corresponding should
requirement from §12.5 (see attached patch). 

Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the packaging
work.

I am aware of #462996, but since what I propose is much narrower, I prefered
openign a new bug.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

[0001-Removes-the-should-request-to-mention-the-developers.patch (text/x-lisp, attachment)]

Message #10 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Cc: 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:10:54 -0700

Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
> information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
> packaging work.

Under normal circumstances, it always duplicates information in
debian/changelog (there are some edge cases where it doesn't, but I think
they're rare).

> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 9037de8..e924b5a 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -9554,9 +9554,8 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
>  
>  	<p>
>  	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
> -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> -	  involved with its creation.
> +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
> +	  authors.
>  	</p>
>  
>  	<p>

Seconded.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #15 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 593533@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:08:54 +0200

On 19.08.2010 04:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy<plessy@debian.org>  writes:
>
>> Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
>> information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
>> packaging work.
>
> Under normal circumstances, it always duplicates information in
> debian/changelog (there are some edge cases where it doesn't, but I think
> they're rare).
>
>> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
>> index 9037de8..e924b5a 100644
>> --- a/policy.sgml
>> +++ b/policy.sgml
>> @@ -9554,9 +9554,8 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
>>
>>   	<p>
>>   	In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
>> -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
>> -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
>> -	  involved with its creation.
>> +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
>> +	  authors.
>>   	</p>
>>
>>   	<p>
>
> Seconded.
>

No, I think it is wrong!

The debian/copyright also include packaging copyright. I think the part
involved in this proposal is for such reasons.
So IMHO we must still require the names of packagers (and the specific
license).

I think that the debian/changelog don't give enough informations about
packagers (e.g. if they are more than one).

Also the initial debian packager should ask upstream for authorisation
to pack the original software, and such information is important for
legal reasons, thus we must know who where the initial debian packager.

ciao
	cate

Message #20 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>

Cc: 593533@bugs.debian.org, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:37:54 -0700

"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org> writes:

> No, I think it is wrong!

> The debian/copyright also include packaging copyright. I think the part
> involved in this proposal is for such reasons.  So IMHO we must still
> require the names of packagers (and the specific license).

We've never said or required that, though.  All we've required is that
debian/copyright contain any relevant copyright notices and any licenses.
I agree that if there are any for the Debian packaging, they should be in
debian/copyright (and I think that's already covered by the other
language), but it's common practice (if arguably sloppy) in the archive to
not put a specific license on the packaging (in which case I think
everyone in the free software community would assume it's under the same
license as the rest of the work since that's pretty much standard usage).
And it's relatively rare for Debian packagers to put explicit copyright
notices on things.

Copyright notices are strictly optional in countries that are signatories
to Berne.  If the copyright holder doesn't put one on, we're under no
obligation to invent one.

> I think that the debian/changelog don't give enough informations about
> packagers (e.g. if they are more than one).

Well, it would if people used the multi-author format, not that we
document this right now.  But more fundamentally, I don't think we're
under any legal obligation to provide any more information than that.

> Also the initial debian packager should ask upstream for authorisation
> to pack the original software, and such information is important for
> legal reasons, thus we must know who where the initial debian packager.

Surely not... if we have to ask anyone for authorization to package
something, it at the very least is non-free, and if we have to know who
that person is for legal reasons, I'm skeptical that it's even
redistributable in non-free since we often will have no way of contacting
that person nor are any sort of legal signatory to any agreements they
made.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #25 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 593533@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:10:23 +0200

On 19.08.2010 09:37, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi"<cate@debian.org>  writes:
>
>> No, I think it is wrong!
>
>> The debian/copyright also include packaging copyright. I think the part
>> involved in this proposal is for such reasons.  So IMHO we must still
>> require the names of packagers (and the specific license).
>
> We've never said or required that, though.  All we've required is that
> debian/copyright contain any relevant copyright notices and any licenses.
> I agree that if there are any for the Debian packaging, they should be in
> debian/copyright (and I think that's already covered by the other
> language), but it's common practice (if arguably sloppy) in the archive to
> not put a specific license on the packaging (in which case I think
> everyone in the free software community would assume it's under the same
> license as the rest of the work since that's pretty much standard usage).
> And it's relatively rare for Debian packagers to put explicit copyright
> notices on things.

Maybe I misunderstand, but dh-make put explicitly at the bottom of
debian/copyright:

: The Debian packaging is (C) #YEAR#, #USERNAME# <#EMAIL#> and
: is licensed under the GPL, see above.

See /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/*

I meant about the specific debian files. I really think that the
patches should have the same license as the upstream.


Anyway, I agree that the information are already there, so
the proposal is useless. IMHO it is good to repeat (what
was implicit said in first paragraph) that we need the same
information for upstream side and packing side.



> Copyright notices are strictly optional in countries that are signatories
> to Berne.  If the copyright holder doesn't put one on, we're under no
> obligation to invent one.

I agree, but this is also the problem: by default a work is
*full protected* by copyright. Thus we need to explicitly grant
at minimun the DFSG basic rights.


>> Also the initial debian packager should ask upstream for authorisation
>> to pack the original software, and such information is important for
>> legal reasons, thus we must know who where the initial debian packager.
>
> Surely not... if we have to ask anyone for authorization to package
> something, it at the very least is non-free, and if we have to know who
> that person is for legal reasons, I'm skeptical that it's even
> redistributable in non-free since we often will have no way of contacting
> that person nor are any sort of legal signatory to any agreements they
> made.

Not really, but this is becoming off-topic.
The debian reasons was something like:
we are packagers and not developers, so we need a cooperative upstream
(and we should not pack a packages that upstream want to obsolete).

But IMHO having an authorization give us a better legal base:
The author acknowledge that the package is really distributable
(errors happens), and it give a light base about using
the package name (trademarks).
Such things are not legally binding, but we can at minimum demonstrate
that we was not in bad faith, and give judge some acknowledgement of
intents of both sides.

ciao
	cate

PS: probably there is also a "license -> contract", but I don't
know if such things is better or not.

Message #30 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 593533@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:54:32 +0200

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
> > information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
> > packaging work.
> 
> Under normal circumstances, it always duplicates information in
> debian/changelog (there are some edge cases where it doesn't, but I think
> they're rare).
> 
> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > index 9037de8..e924b5a 100644
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -9554,9 +9554,8 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
> >  
> >  	<p>
> >  	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> > -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
> > -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> > -	  involved with its creation.
> > +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
> > +	  authors.
> >  	</p>
> >  
> >  	<p>
> 
> Seconded.

Seconded as well. For cate's concerns, I think it's reasonable to have
people add copyright notice for the debian packaging in the copyright file
but I don't see any reason to impose it. Most of the packaging might be
non-copyrightable in many cases...

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer ◈ [Flattr=20693]

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

Message #35 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andrew McMillan <andrew@morphoss.com>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:03:02 +1200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 19:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
> > information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
> > packaging work.
> 
> Under normal circumstances, it always duplicates information in
> debian/changelog (there are some edge cases where it doesn't, but I think
> they're rare).
> 
> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > index 9037de8..e924b5a 100644
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -9554,9 +9554,8 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
> >  
> >  	<p>
> >  	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> > -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
> > -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> > -	  involved with its creation.
> > +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
> > +	  authors.
> >  	</p>
> >  
> >  	<p>
> 
> Seconded.
> 

Seconded.

While I understand Cate's point about recognition of Debian Developers,
this is about removing the policy requirement that they be acknowledged
in this way and leaving them the choice to be acknowledged.

It seems to me that making the decision to be a decision of the
maintainer is perfectly correct.

Cheers,
					Andrew.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com                            +64(272)DEBIAN
  Let me put it this way: today is going to be a learning experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #40 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 593533@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:32:02 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:37:54AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Copyright notices are strictly optional in countries that are signatories
> to Berne.  If the copyright holder doesn't put one on, we're under no
> obligation to invent one.

We're under no *legal* obligation to invent one, true, but having
documentation of the code's provenance is useful if there are questions of
legitimacy or if there's ever a concern about license ambiguities or
relicensing.  For Debian packaging we probably aren't ever going to run into
a situation where we have to worry about it, and for upstream code I think
it's fine to rely on upstream themselves to track this - but it does mean we
ought to at least have documentation of the *primary* upstream copyright
holders, even if they haven't bothered to include copyright notices
upstream.  So I'm not comfortable with a principle of only doing the bare
minimum required by law.

But none of this should stand in the way of dropping the requirement of
documenting the "original packagers" of the software, who may not (or no
longer) have any copyright interest in the current package.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #45 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>

Cc: 593533@bugs.debian.org, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:07:12 -0700

"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org> writes:

> Maybe I misunderstand, but dh-make put explicitly at the bottom of
> debian/copyright:

> : The Debian packaging is (C) #YEAR#, #USERNAME# <#EMAIL#> and
> : is licensed under the GPL, see above.

> See /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/*

> I meant about the specific debian files. I really think that the
> patches should have the same license as the upstream.

I do think that it's good practice to do that (although it does create
somewhat pointless makework to update the copyright dates yearly), but if
one looks around the archive, lots of people don't bother.

> Anyway, I agree that the information are already there, so the proposal
> is useless. IMHO it is good to repeat (what was implicit said in first
> paragraph) that we need the same information for upstream side and
> packing side.

We should really deal with bug #462996, which is the broader question
including things like this.  I'd like to remove the reference to naming
the Debian packagers separate from the copyright information as a separate
change, though, unless you feel like that would put us in a situation
that's worse than we're in right now.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #52 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

To: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>, 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:07:02 +0900

Le Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:33:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>  
>  	<p>
>  	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
> -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> -	  involved with its creation.
> +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
> +	  authors.
>  	</p>

Dear Cate and everybody,

so far, there are five persons seconding the removal of the above requirement,
including three formal seconders.

I found the answers to Cate's objections convincing.  Cate, do you have extra
arguments to provide, or would it be fine to follow the majority's point of
view ?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Message #57 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

To: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>, 593533@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 01:19:00 +0100

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:07:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:33:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> >  
> >  	<p>
> >  	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> > -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
> > -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> > -	  involved with its creation.
> > +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
> > +	  authors.
> >  	</p>
> 
> Dear Cate and everybody,
> 
> so far, there are five persons seconding the removal of the above requirement,
> including three formal seconders.
> 
> I found the answers to Cate's objections convincing.  Cate, do you have extra
> arguments to provide, or would it be fine to follow the majority's point of
> view ?
(Academically, of course).

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #62 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

To: 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 01:23:29 +0100

* Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>, 2011-11-29, 09:07:
>>  	<p>
>>  	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
>> -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
>> -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
>> -	  involved with its creation.
>> +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
>> +	  authors.
>>  	</p>

Seconded. I've never understood why the initial packagers are 
special-cased.

>Dear Cate and everybody,
>
>so far, there are five persons seconding the removal of the above 
>requirement, including three formal seconders.

s/five/six/, s/three/four/. :)

-- 
Jakub Wilk

Message #67 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:10:26 -0800

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>, 2011-11-29, 09:07:
> >> 	<p>
> >> 	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> >>-	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
> >>-	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> >>-	  involved with its creation.
> >>+	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
> >>+	  authors.
> >> 	</p>
> 
> Seconded. I've never understood why the initial packagers are
> special-cased.

I don't think that initial packagers should be special-cased, but the
copyright and licensing status of the packaging should be made clear
in the copyright file to the extent possible.

How to do this without making all packages instantly buggy, though, is
tricky.


Don Armstrong

-- 
"People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug
trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."
 -- John Brown, DEA Chief

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Message #72 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

Cc: 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:25:08 -0800

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:

> I don't think that initial packagers should be special-cased, but the
> copyright and licensing status of the packaging should be made clear in
> the copyright file to the extent possible.

> How to do this without making all packages instantly buggy, though, is
> tricky.

I think that's actually handled by the previous paragraph:

        <p>
          Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
          copyright information and distribution license in the file
          <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</file>. This
          file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link.
        </p>

not that everyone realizes that would apply to the Debian packaging files
as well as the upstream source.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #77 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:33:17 -0800

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
> > I don't think that initial packagers should be special-cased, but the
> > copyright and licensing status of the packaging should be made clear in
> > the copyright file to the extent possible.
> 
> I think that's actually handled by the previous paragraph:
> 
>         <p>
>           Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
>           copyright information and distribution license in the file
>           <file>/usr/share/doc/<var>package</var>/copyright</file>. This
>           file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link.
>         </p>
> 
> not that everyone realizes that would apply to the Debian packaging files
> as well as the upstream source.

True. With that interpretation, it kind makes eliminating the
requirement for the original packager not to be mentioned a null-op
except for cases where the original packager has no copyright interest
in all (most?) jurisdictions. Perhaps a footnote clarifying this is in
order?


Don Armstrong

-- 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.     
 -- Robert Heinlein

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Message #84 received at 593533@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Cc: 593533@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#593533: debian-policy: Proposal to stop requesting to list initial Debian maintainers in debian/copyright

Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 11:01:58 -0800

Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> in my experience with the new packages that I prepared, the FTP team is
> not requesting that debian/copyright mentions the name of the Debian
> maintainers who were involved in the initial packaging work. I therefore
> propose to align the Policy on the current practice, and remove the
> corresponding should requirement from §12.5 (see attached patch).

[...]

> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -9554,9 +9554,8 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
>  
>  	<p>
>  	  In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream
> -	  sources (if any) were obtained.  It should name the original
> -	  authors of the package and the Debian maintainer(s) who were
> -	  involved with its creation.
> +	  sources (if any) were obtained, and should name the original
> +	  authors.
>  	</p>

Rather than let the best be the enemy of the good here, I've gone ahead
and applied this patch.  The remaining concerns about letting people know
that documenting Debian package maintainer copyrights is a good idea can
be discussed as part of the more general copyright bugs we have open, such
as #476810.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #89 received at 593533-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: 593533-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#593533: fixed in debian-policy 3.9.3.0

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:02:12 +0000

Source: debian-policy
Source-Version: 3.9.3.0

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

debian-policy_3.9.3.0.dsc
  to main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.9.3.0.dsc
debian-policy_3.9.3.0.tar.gz
  to main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.9.3.0.tar.gz
debian-policy_3.9.3.0_all.deb
  to main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.9.3.0_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 593533@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> (supplier of updated debian-policy package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:40:36 -0800
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.9.3.0
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
Description: 
 debian-policy - Debian Policy Manual and related documents
Closes: 23712 89038 498300 532120 578421 593533 609162 617315 617516 619275 620870 621479 623050 626338 626408 626779 626796 627490 628540 633797 637614 640735 640737 641071 643690 644230 646119 646166 648387 649674 651020 658209
Changes: 
 debian-policy (3.9.3.0) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   [ Russ Allbery ]
   * Update the copyright format document to the version of DEP-5 from the
     DEP web site and apply additional changes from subsequent discussion
     in debian-devel and debian-project.  Revise for clarity, to add more
     examples, and to update the GFDL license versions.  Thanks, Steve
     Langasek, Charles Plessy, Justin B Rye, and Jonathan Nieder.
     (Closes: #658209, #648387)
   * Publish the copyright format specification as copyright-format-1.0 so
     that later versions can be added without removing previous versions of
     the standard.  Patch from Charles Plessy.  (Closes: #646119)
   * Policy: Improve Architecture field in source package
     Wording: Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
     Closes: #626779
   * Policy: Initial Debian maintainers need not be listed in copyright
     Wording: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
     Seconded: Andrew McMillan <andrew@morphoss.com>
     Closes: #593533
   * Policy: Document cron job file naming restrictions
     Wording: Karl E. Jorgensen <karl@jorgensen.org.uk>
     Wording: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>
     Seconded: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
     Closes: #609162
   * Policy: Document issues with conflicting packages sharing a conffile
     Wording: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>
     Seconded: Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
     Closes: #23712
   * Policy: Add /run FHS exception, clarify rules for /run and /var/run
     Wording: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
     Seconded: Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net>
     Closes: #620870, #532120
   * Policy: Architecture restrictions in a dependency must be non-empty
     Wording: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
     Seconded: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
     Closes: #498300
   * MIME Policy: Retire this document and merge it with Policy
     Wording: Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
     Seconded: Andrew McMillan <andrew@morphoss.com>
     Closes: #89038
   * Consistently use "Debian source control file" for *.dsc files and
     "Source package control file" for debian/control files.  Patch from
     Charles Plessy.  (Closes: #626796)
   * Clarify that continuation lines of the Description control field must
     contain at least one non-whitespace character.  Thanks, Guillem Jover.
     (Closes: #627490)
   * Fix the example of creating a /usr/local subdirectory to not fail if
     the chown or chmod fail.  Thanks, Joey Hess.  (Closes: #617315)
   * Clarify the requirements for symlinks from inside one top-level
     directory to another and add examples and a rationale.  Thanks,
     Carsten Hey.  (Closes: #626338)
   * Clarify that Perl Policy 2.4 is for packages built from the perl
     source package and the manual page extensions are different for
     separate module packages.  Thanks, Steve Langasek.  (Closes: #643690)
   * Say that packages in main may also not recommend packages in non-free,
     bringing the main text in line with the list of fields and in line
     with the long-standing release goal.  (Closes: #646166)
   * Resynchronize the archive section list with ftp-master, adding
     education, introspection, and metapackages.  Patch from Charles
     Plessy.  (Closes: #651020)
   * Clarify that packages in main may not declare Pre-Depends or
     Build-Depends-Indep relationships outside of main either.  Partly
     addresses #587279.
   * Fix typo in the version numbers in the dpkg-divert examples.  Thanks,
     Slavko.
   * Add the release date of 3.9.2.0 to upgrading-checklist.
   * Fix ordering of the last entries in the 3.9.2.0 upgrading-checklist.
   * Fix typo in upgrading-checklist entry for multiarch paths.  Thanks,
     Michael Dorrington.  (Closes: #626408)
   * Add id tags for each version entry in upgrading-checklist so that,
     when eventually published somewhere, other Debian web sites can link
     to specific entries.  Patch from Charles Plessy.
   * Add AGPL-3 to tools/license-count.
   * Update tools/license-count to work with the new Lintian lab layout.
   * Add build-arch and build-indep targets to debian/rules.
 .
   [ Bill Allombert ]
   * Policy: Link relationship fields (7.1) to architecture specification
     strings (11.1).
     Patch from Charles Plessy in #628174.
   * Policy: Retire legacy Motif policy (11.8.8)
     Proposed by: Justin B Rye
     Wording: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
     Seconded: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
     Seconded: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Closes: #621479
   * copyright-format: Fix URL for the Eiffel Forum License.
     Reported by Thomas Preud'homme, patch by Charles Plessy.
     Closes: #623050
   * copyright-format: Update SPDX link to point to the SPDX license registry.
     Patch by Charles Plessy.  Closes: #628540
   * copyright-format: Correct or add links to SPDX.
     Wording: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: Gregor Herrmann <gregoa@debian.org>
     Closes: #641071
   * Policy: Clarify that 'machine-extractable' referer the copyright
     files (12.5)
     Wording:  Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>
     Seconded: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
     Closes: #617516
   * copyright-format: remove drivers from abstract and useless appendix
     Wording: Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi>
     Seconded: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
     Closes: #640735
   * copyright-format: Fix syntax of examples.
     Proposed by: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Wording: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
     Closes: #649674
   * copyright-format: Clarify specification of multiple license exception:
     Wording: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
     Seconded: Craig Small <csmall@debian.org>
     Seconded: Gregor Herrmann <gregoa@debian.org>
     Seconded: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
     Seconded: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
     Closes: #633797
   * copyright-format: Specify URL on www.debian.org
     Wording: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: David Prévot <taffit@debian.org>
     Seconded: Gregor Herrmann <gregoa@debian.org>
     Closes: #640737
   * Perl policy: Document major version upgrade trigger
     Wording: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@debian.org>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
     Seconded: Niko Tyni <ntyni@debian.org>
     Seconded: Gregor Herrmann <gregoa@debian.org>
     Closes: #619275
   * Virtual: change ttf-japanese-{mincho, gothic} to
     fonts-japanese-{mincho, gothic}.
     Proposed by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu@nigauri.org>
     Seconded: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>
     Closes: #644230
   * Virtual: Retire java-compiler, java2-compiler, and java-virtual-machine.
     Proposed by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
     Seconded: tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org>
     Seconded: Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>
     Closes: #578421
   * Policy 9.10: No more recommend to call install-docs for doc-base.
     Wording: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
     Seconded: Robert Luberda <robert@debian.org>
     Seconded: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
     Closes: #637614
Checksums-Sha1: 
 f09d426468f56b6049b9125da20653929839ab3d 1518 debian-policy_3.9.3.0.dsc
 ccf8018f8d0bd2e362c9af50622ddd003ea52ac7 692844 debian-policy_3.9.3.0.tar.gz
 ee6c63e2c39db3cb1478ebe4115fc856a455d92b 1926768 debian-policy_3.9.3.0_all.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 5466d21ba0c6ede59969da1092d140eb0039e2d0fcc73911db2fcf41d193a80a 1518 debian-policy_3.9.3.0.dsc
 3d04d02064329136765d0e5926aca956d9d55ca171ad12efcbb890cffaad4a73 692844 debian-policy_3.9.3.0.tar.gz
 e456bf496aeb792c90cbbf7a8192c8cb13e5421252779d5f9cb6114a47321c3e 1926768 debian-policy_3.9.3.0_all.deb
Files: 
 d2c6604b9c75c57536ac42b04abb3eba 1518 doc optional debian-policy_3.9.3.0.dsc
 01d3630a3393d484ad765d53aca0f0fc 692844 doc optional debian-policy_3.9.3.0.tar.gz
 88e00d9c8508884a9403ae403332325a 1926768 doc optional debian-policy_3.9.3.0_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPRbldAAoJEH2AMVxXNt51FqYH/222GABCa953WNu1SRxP7s7k
HttTjAFekZkxGz+EfjujDteiJg3j6ep0ebOSQXSDm2EoTJY4RtpzmSigTqw0wGC4
+uv4StQTZTK/SJD8BYq3gkrxTy2YvzmVnfh1JIr8xLy3+l7jK7zykIDlg2nwUann
rUk5mY5x0Us8XK7U6TEjyudhPqppinARoolS+bSLBlkpGokOqXILRN2V6S5q1sAN
5I0YfL3coD/b2CEpJnieSMQagsO8H0Vn0n2RgT4T8L2fXuKo2dKCWfFAv3XlwPb0
RwmIz/pl8kqsdf+fJnUGXGqxfpy+TdUAdTlPIYQTaM5dn5E1i3oH8r2hOkEHQYU=
=AEmv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.