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

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be> writes:

> As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it
> would be useful to add an optional header

There is only one header in a DEP-5 copyright file. I think you mean
“add an optional field to the Files section”.

> (named "Binary-Package" or whatever), to state which binary package is
> using that file and license.

> The rational is that sooner or later, we will want to use the
> machine-interpretable copyright file to validate packages freeness,
> license compatibilities and so on.

Interesting. So you think a single source package could produce binary
packages that are each judged differently for their DFSG status? I
wonder what the FTP masters would say to that.

(That could read sarcastically; it's not. I'm interested to know.)

 \      “Shepherds … look after their sheep so they can, first, fleece |
  `\   them and second, turn them into meat. That's much more like the |
_o__)      priesthood as I know it.” —Christopher Hitchens, 2008-10-29 |
Ben Finney

Reply to: