Re: DEP5 Copyright Question
Le Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:13:24AM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
> My understanding is, that it should be a complete overview of the source
> licenses. I do not treat generated files as source, because,
> well... they're not.
> They might come in the source tarball, like the autotools-generated
> stuff usually do, but they're still generated, and I still wouldn't
> consider them part of the source.
note that it is difficult to know if a file was auto-generated without
inspecting it. In the past I was routinely ignoring the m4 folders as I
thought they only contained files distributed with Autoconf, but recently I
realised that they also contain original works under a variety of copyrights
Luckily, when files are autogenerated, it is not much work for you:
- If their source is distributed in the same source package, it is not needed
to repeat their copyrights and licenses. The DEP 5 format provides with its
Files field an easy way to include them them with to the description of their
- If their source is distributed in another Debian package, you can cut and
paste from this package's copyright file.
For the files distributed in autoconf packages, it seems informally accepted to
ignore them completely. But there are no written guidelines explaining how
this tolerance can be expanded or not to other autogenerated files.
Have a nice day,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan