On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:34:41 +0100 Jan Beyer <jan@beathovn.de> wrote: > On 01/08/2008 05:22 PM, JackTheDipper wrote : > >> ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)... > >> > > to be honest, i looked at some other debian source packages (e.g. > > nautilus and serpentine) and couldn't find an entry in debian/copyright > > for install-sh... so, what would i have to add there? Nothing, nless it is modified, then maybe. Typically, upstream, it is: install-sh -> /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh (A modified install-sh is rare - if there is a difference it may simply be an old version rather than a modified script.) > Do you know about the script licensecheck? It's contained in the devscripts > package. I just stumbled upon it some time ago. Running > $ licensecheck install-sh > gives > install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > If I am not mistaken, you have to cite the whole license anyway in > debian/copyright... Not quite. Generated / symlinked files do not need to be included (otherwise every autotools package would have to declare the BSD licence.) I suppose it would be nice if licensecheck had an option to ignore such files but this is easier upstream than in the actual package because the autotools will convert the upstream symlink into a real file for obvious reasons. licensecheck is v.v.useful but it is mostly used for the source directory. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpOS3Bdm6B5f.pgp
Description: PGP signature