On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 18:10 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > What is supposed to be checked here, That debian/patches/foo and the upstream files that it touches have compatible or incompatible licenses. > and how should that be fixed outside The person who owns debian/patches/foo should be contacted to relicense the patch, or the patch should be dropped. > DEP-5 listing of every patch, and for patches like the example above a > detailed explanation which parts of a patch are under which licence? DEP-5 specifies that there should be license information for every file in the source package, including all of the debian/patches/ directory. > IMHO it would be more reasonable to treat debian/patches/ > as special case, defaulting to "same licence as the patched code". While that would be nice, it isn't always what Debian contributors do. The aim of this request is to mitigate serious fallout from that. I plan to submit additional feature requests for other fallout, the next one would be patches that mix GPL changes with permissive code. There could also be a pedantic complaint for the general case of debian/* using a different license to upstream. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part