Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
Le Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:14:23PM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit :
>
> I think this implies that our unit of license-compliance is the source
> package, not the binary package - and I suspect the reason we want that
> property is that a source package is the smallest unit that the archive
> software will add or remove from a suite, so as long as each version of
> each source package is compliant, the suite as a whole is compliant at
> all times (which is the actual goal).
If we include corner cases, then our unit for license compliance is our archive
as a whole, as some binary packages include derivatives of source code provided
by independant packages at build time. This is tracked with the Built-Using
field (ready to be documented in the Policy: http://bugs.debian.org/641153).
But usually, it is indeed the source package that is the unit. Otherwise our
binary pakcages would not comply with the GPL version 1 and 2.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: