Re: copyright precision
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Paul Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>> Other packages that don't build from source by default include bash,
>> dash, debianutils, dpkg, e2fsprogs, findutils, fribidi, gmp, jemalloc,
>> libatomic-ops, libbsd, libtasn1-6, lzo2, ncurses, nettle, patch,
>> readline6, and sed.
> I would add firmware-linux-free and probably any package with a
> debian/missing-sources/ directory.
Oh nice to see that my lintian implementation is useful. Will add a
tag fact about this in lintian.
>> I believe that being able to build from source is more important than
>> copying copyright information from packages in Built-Using.
> The latter is potentially a license violation, but I think building
> from source is very important. I also think the solution to correct
> copyright/license meta-data for binary packages completely relies on
> building from source (see my other mail in this thread).
>> Now we're two, but that's still not project consensus as can be seen in
>> e.g. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978#185.
> Make that three.