Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, the one thing that I think we need to clarify here is whether we
> need to list the licenses for files that aren't source code for what goes
> into the binary distribution, such as the build system. The files from
> Autoconf and Automake have a bunch of different licenses and documenting
> them is a fair bit of work for each package.
Actually, thinking about it for a little while, I think we're all
missing the point.
Who cares that file foo.c is licensed under GPL and bar.c under BSD?
People that want to take the source and use it elsewhere. These people
are obviously looking at the sources, and don't really need
But on the other hand, what are people looking at debian/copyright
probably expecting? (and all the use cases for a machine parseable format
I've seen quoted so far do respect this rule)
Licensing terms for the *binary* files. They don't care that file foo.c
is licensed under GPL and bar.c under BSD, they care that libfoo.so is
licensed under GPL and libbar.so under BSD, or that libfoobar.so is
under GPL/BSD, foo.h under GPL and bar.h under BSD...