[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#210779: libtunepimp1: give me the license

Don Armstrong writes:
> [This is rapidly becomming more appropriate for -legal. MFT set
> accordingly.]

I don't read -legal.  In any case, this will be by final response.

> Debian distributes packages as part of the Debian distribution, not
> (really) as parts intended to be used on their own.

Fetching individual packages is the canonical way of getting them.  DSAs
specifically suggest doing so, and some programs are available only from
the Debian archive.

> If people wish to circumvent the tools which enforce this consensus...

I know of no such tools.  Ftp and http work just fine, without requiring
any circumvention at all.

> Now, if the Author or Copyright holder asks us nicely to include their
> license literally, we might as well accomodate them.  But by default, I
> see no reason to do any differently than we are already doing.

You can do what you want.  However, every one of my GPL licensed packages
contains GPL licensed work of which I am author and I want my license to
accompany it.

> The upstream's COPYING file (or COPYRIGHT, AUTHORS, etc.) should already
> be included in debian/copyright, unless it's some wierd usage of that
> file.

"COPYING" is the name commonly applied by authors to the file containing
the GPL.  It belongs in usr/share/doc/<package>.  It most certainly does
not belong in debian/copyright.

If you feel strongly about the wasted bytes write a patch for dpkg to
identify copies of the GPL and replace them with symlinks.
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Reply to: