On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:40:07 +0100 Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Sat Apr 05 10:00, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: [...] > > Yes, including /usr/share/common-licenses in the 'license blurb' text > > itself is valid? > > This is what I meant. As long as the text in debian/rules unambiguously > declares the licence of the program, it doesn't matter what it is. Mmmmh, Policy[1] seems to require a verbatim copy of the copyright and distribution license. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile My usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpnfMYLExhEO.pgp
Description: PGP signature