Re: Transitional (dummy) packages considered silly
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Transitional (dummy) packages considered silly
- From: Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:34:54 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Russ Allbery's message of "Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:33:19 -0700")
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4AC0C20F.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Do you happen to know the chapter/section where that is said?
>>> Note that "12.7 Changelog files" does not require a
>>> /usr/share/doc/changelog for native packages.
>> 2.3. Copyright considerations
>> Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
>> and distribution license in the file
>> `/usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright' (see Section 12.5, `Copyright
>> information' for further details).
> Yup. And since a package necessarily includes metadata, including a
> package description, which is copyrightable material.
Is the Packages.gz file then in violation of my packages license? It
doesn't come with a copy of the GPL as required by my software. :)