including complete corresponding licence information should stay a requirement (was Re: Debian Policy 18.104.22.168 released)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sean Whitton dixit:
>2.3 & 4.5
> In cases where a package's distribution license explicitly permits
> its copyright information to be excluded from distributions of
> binaries built from the source, a verbatim copy of the package's
> copyright information should normally still be included in the
> copyright file, but it need not be if creating and maintaining a
> copy of that information involves significant time and effort.
I quite disagree. Downstreams will require the licence information,
and if it’s included in the source package, it’s easy enough to add
it to the binary package, and if not, the above does not apply either.
I recently did the work to audit swagger-ui-dist, which is built
using “modern web 2.0” tools from over 80 NPM packages, and it took
me some hours, but we now have a licence file for the binary, and
upstream was actually thankful about these efforts.
I would expect that, even if it’s hard, this to be mandatory part
of packaging anything for Debian. I will be very unamused about
packages without correct corresponding licence information EVEN
IF the upstream licence allows such, because ONLY the presence of
such correct licence information in the Debian package shows that
an actual audit of the legal situation has been done (and only
after that, this decision to not include the information could be
done, and by then, the information will already be there, so it
must (in my opinion) still be included).
I hereby ask that this change be reverted.
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (MirBSD)
Comment: ☃ ЦΤℱ—８ ☕☂☄
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----