Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.
There's a fairly lengthy discussion starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00235.html
-M-
Reply to: