Re: Let’s turn DEP5 into something useful
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:28:50PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> A real-life example from libunistring (which I've filed an ITP for [1]):
> The source files that will constitute the resulting library package are
> all LGPL-3+'d, but the source tarball also contains a test suite, which
> is GPL-3+ (without any exception). Now is the license of the test suite
> relevant to the resulting library package, effectivly rendering it
> GPL-3+? I don't think so, but looking at a debian/copyright file using
> the current DEP-5 format, one cannot really tell that the libunistring
> package is actually under the LGPL-3+, hence my suggestion to add
> information about which license applies to which binary package.
We can try to address this use case in the DEP, but I think for the most
part this is a policy question rather than something to be determined in a
DEP defining a file format. There's no legal reason that debian/copyright
would need to contain any information at all about the license of the test
suite, if that test suite doesn't wind up in the binary package; yet the ftp
masters currently reject packages from the archive if debian/copyright
doesn't enumerate the licenses for such extra matter.
The DEP as currently written is agnostic regarding the level of *detail*
that has to be included, it only defines the structure for the detail you
choose to include. This can be made more explicit.
--
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
Reply to: