Sam Hocevar wrote:
That's right, we don't know the licensing terms of binary files. But if we stop at the "it's not sufficient" argument, we'll never get anywhere, because it is impossible for a source package to determine the exact licensing terms of its binary packages. I'll leave that to another proposal.
Sorry, I don't want to be a nuisance, but this has been puzzling me for a few days now - I can't figure out how the license of a binary package compiled from a source package could not be derived by combining the licenses of the relevant source files?
Would someone mind giving an example, just to stop it bugging me? Regards, Dave.