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

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

Frank Lin PIAT dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:47:52PM +0100]:
> Exemple 2:
> > File: foo.c
> > License: GPL-2
> > Binary-Package: foo 
> > 
> > File: doc/info/*
> > License: GFDL-NON-FREE
> > Binary-Package: foo-doc-is-non-free
> The source package produces both a free and non-free package.
> This extra header would be completely optional, and only useful to
> white-list some specific situation.
> That's just an idea (a foolish idea?)

Leaving aside what Ben Finney and Robert Collins also replied to your
message... I do not believe this to be doable at all. 

Packages in main should have their source packages in main. But if the
source package has non-free components, then it cannot be uploaded
into main. Even if the non-free components are not packaged, in order
to be in main they need to be stripped out of said components (and,
say, repackaged with +dfsg version)

Of course, you could perfectly have source packages in main generating
binary packages both in main and in contrib - But the licenses for the
sources' components would all be GFDL-free anyway.

Gunnar Wolf • gwolf@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244

Reply to: