Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) > > > > > > I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages > > > (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in > > > the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, > > > probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. > > Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : > > > > I am not happy at all with cluttering the binary package description > > with license blabla. I would do so only as last resort > > Dear Reinhard, Francesco and everybody, > > I think that the Debian copyright file of libav 6:9.1-1 is clear > enough with its comment in the header, and that it is best to keep the > license information out of the description of the package. Newest progress(?) on this is commit e3731d with this commit message: > Document all licensing of binary packages in README.Debian (not partly > as comment in copyright file), to avoid confusing source That change has not yet released but sits in our VCS. Could you please comment on that? Sorry, I can't figure out how to reference it at our public anoncms URL, but it is commit e3731d at git.debian.org:/git/pkg-multimedia/libav . > Note that the machine-readable format also allows License fields in > the header paragraph to give the license information for the package > as a whole. I am aware of that. But I am not convinced that *any* of the licensing formally covered by the copyright file format 1.0 are about the licensing of _binary_ packages. It is my understanding that they all are about sources only, not effective reasoned licenses. 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