Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
"Thomas Preud'homme" <robotux@celest.fr> writes:
> Le mardi 8 mai 2012 07:56:35, Peter Miller a écrit :
>> I has always puzzled me that there are not license packages that one
>> could Depends on, and get the appropriate license placed in the
>> appropriate place. Apt-get is an excellent mechanism for that kind of
>> thing, why not use it?
> Because every package must have a license delivered with it. The case of
> licenses in base-files is a compromise given that they are very popular
> and that this package is normally installed on any Debian system.
I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
don't include a license. If we're legally fine with that, I'm having a
hard time seeing the clear distinction between that and a dependency on
another package including the license.
Surely this has been discussed before? I don't remember seeing it on the
debian-policy list since I started working on Policy.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: