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

Re: Binaries and MIT/expat license interpretative tradition

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:24:24AM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> (My question is not Debian-related, but I figured the people who know 
> the answer read this list.)
> The usual interpretation (seen in the list archives) of the MIT/expat 
> license seems to be the that the copyright notice needs to be retained 
> in the source but does not have to be displayed by binaries.
> The license does not say that the binaries do not constitute a copy of 
> "the Software". What's the basis of the interpretation and that the 
> copyright notices do not need to be grepped from the source and stuffed 
> in an about box or similarly placed on binaries?

The copyright notice does need to be included with the binaries. On
Debian systems it is placed in /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright. This
isn't a particularly strange or restrictive thing to require...

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: