Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmmm, I really meant that I found point 1 to be quite astute. I agree,
> the conclusion is quite off. The copyright file is very important in
> binary packages, and should have full-text licenses.
> The important aspect of point 1 is the conclusion that at least with the
> GPL you can distribute any source release as is; meaning that our
> additional work on the full-text copyright file in the source package is
> unnecessary.
> I think this distinction between the needs of the source package
> copyright file and binary package copyright file is very useful, and can
> help steer towards a much simplified source copyright file, and yet
> still satisfy the requirement for full-text binary copyright files.
Oh, yes, I agree with this. However, note that ftp-master reviews source
packages currently, which makes their lives difficult if the copyright
files in the binary files are assembled in any complex way (particularly
since it's not clear that it's okay to build the package before review).
But that's probably an addressable problem by just not doing anything too
complicated.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: