[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Convenience copies in upstream code: dependencies, removal, copyright, and other issues

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 12:05 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > This is because we don't only distribute the binaries; we also
> > distribute the source.
> But the upstream source already has them (in the source files
> themselves or other files).

Sure, but it's often spread through hundreds of files.

> The copyright file is for installation in the binary packages (as
> per my reading of policy 12.5).

That's true, but debian/copyright documents the licensing of the
source package, not necessarily the resultant binary package. [If for
no other reason than it's relatively easy to do the former, and
incredibly difficult to do the latter.]

> I don't see how including that info saves work for them since they
> check it anyways.

It's easier to look at a single file which lists all of the licenses
in a source package than trolling through hundreds of files, trying to
make sure you've got them all.

While I certainly can't speak for the ftpmasters themselves, if I were
one, I'd personally put off processing packages which obviously
misssed licenses. In those cases, I wouldn't be able to trust the
maintainer to have done due dilligence at all, and would have to spend
more time doing what should have been the maintainer's job in the
first place.

Don Armstrong

Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p242

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: