[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How to deal with "assets" packages shadowing real upstream



Quoting Bas Wijnen (2016-03-08 19:23:18)
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Oh - I just discovered that this _is_ covered by Policy §4.13 
>> already.
>
> Reading that again, I see that it says code copies are acceptable if 
> the code is meant to be used that way (with GNU autotools as an 
> example in the footnote).  For convenience, I quoted the whole thing 
> below.
>
> I think consensus has changed on this issue: this practically means 
> "run configure as shipped by upstream".  As far as I know, we now 
> recommend regenerating everything from source (configure.ac, 
> Makefile.am).  Should this be changed in policy?

I do not interpret it like that.

I interpret it as "redistribute upstream source as-is when it includes 
code copies of autotools, because that code is meant to be included with 
all projects using it".  I do not read into it that Policy dictates 
whether to then trust those pieces of code, nor (as some do) to skip 
documenting copyright and licensing for those files.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: