Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo
Frank Lin PIAT <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 |