❦ 2 janvier 2018 12:04 -0800, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> : >>> We currently allow distribution of a binary-package-only Debian image >>> along with a written offer of source or, for non-commercial >>> distribution, a simple pointer to the Debian source archives. This >>> complies with the GPL but wouldn't, at least by my reading, comply with >>> the Apache 2.0 license unless we include the NOTICE files in binary >>> packages. (Which is fairly trivial to do -- in fact, I wonder if we >>> should just solve this problem in debhelper and add NOTICE to the >>> default debhelper dh_installdocs whitelist.) > >> Except for cases where the whole work is not under Apache license, only >> part of it. In this case, the NOTICE file may not be at the >> root. License also says documentation is fine, so debian/copyright could >> be enough. > > debian/copyright would definitely be enough if people remembered to check > NOTICE for each upstream release and copy its contents into > debian/copyright, but I've forgotten to do this for packages in the past. > Just installing the NOTICE files seems more foolproof to me, and involves > less fiddly checklist stuff with each new upstream release. > > Good point about it possibly being hard for debhelper to find all the > NOTICE files, though. There is some irony on having a warning about license.txt that shouldn't be in the binary copyright (because "all license information should be collected in the debian/copyright file") but an error when we don't copy the notice file. -- Patch griefs with proverbs. -- William Shakespeare, "Much Ado About Nothing"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature