Quoting Stefan Weil (2022-01-19 18:07:28) > Am 19.01.22 um 17:43 schrieb Thomas Koch: > > > I searched but apparently this has not yet been discussed anywhere below lists.debian.org. > > > > My package ships two convenience copies from autoconf-archive in it's m4 folder. Should I > > > > a) leave these files and add the corresponding data to d/copyright or > > b) leave these files and don't bother about d/copyright or > > c) remove these files and add build-depend on autoconf-archive, linking the files before dh_autoreconf? > > > > Apparently I'm not the only one with uncertainty here: > > https://bugs.debian.org/949119 > > > > Thanks for your guidance, Thomas > > > As I wrote in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=949119#15 > autoconf-archive is not needed for building because the two required > files are also provided as part of the Tesseract source tree. > > Technically all options a), b) and c) use exactly those two files either > from the Tesseract source tree or from autoconf-archive during the build > process. Nothing of those files is part of the build results which get > installed. So a binary install package does not require a copyright > notice for any of those files. > > I don't know the Debian rules for source packages. Do they require an > extra documentation of all copyrights for any file in the source > distribution? The licenses of both files don't demand that. Thanks for elaborating. The concern is not licensing, but maintenance. It is covered in Debian Policy § 4.13: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#embedded-code-copies Kind regards, - 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