Re: liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 09:46:04 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2016-08-06 23:37, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 05:00:09PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> >> as you somehow add jquery.js to your doc-package, please add its license
> >> to your debian/copyright.
> >
> > The jquery.js is installed by doxygen in the documentation process. It
> > does not belong to the source package (the full autogenerated
> > documentation provided by upstream was intentionally removed to avoid
> > compressed JS files). I wonder why I should add licenses of files that
> > are not part of the source package and do not even have an idea how I
> > could do this syntactically correctly - lintian would claim an unused
> > copyright paragraph and IMHO lintian is correct here.
>
> A bug has been filed against lintian about this, see #736360.
>
> This does seem like one of the intended use cases of the "Built-Using"
> field, as Helmut and Jakub discuss.
>
> Policy § 7.8:
> | Some binary packages incorporate parts of other packages when built
> | but do not have to depend on those packages. Examples include
> | linking with static libraries or incorporating source code from
> | another package during the build. In this case, the source packages
> | of those other packages are a required part of the complete source
> | (the binary package is not reproducible without them).
>
The policy text is way too broad, Built-Using is really about GPL
compliance, and jquery isn't GPL. See #688251.
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: