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

Debian Policy and copyright for binary packages made from foo-source


I'm working on packaging binutils-sh-elf, which is a native package which only 
has a debian/ directory. At build time, it extracts the tarball from binutils-
source—whatever version it happens to be—and builds it into binary packages 
with the appropriate options.

For informative purposes, I have this notice in my debian/copyright file:
Comment: This file specifies licensing information only for the
 source package, which merely provides the tooling for the sh-elf
 port. For licensing information about the GNU Binutils binaries,
 consult /usr/share/doc/binutils-common/copyright.

This seems like a convenient solution that satisfies the spirit of Debian 
Policy, since I recommend binutils-common for the translations anyway. This 
doesn't feel much different from referring to /usr/share/common-licenses/. 
However Policy seems to say I ought to include the notices directly:
> However, the copyright notices for any files which are compiled into the
> object code shipped in the binary package must all be included in
> /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright when the license requires that copyright
> information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions, as most
> do.

I could concatenate my /usr/share/doc/pkg/copyright with the one for the 
Binutils source, but then I'd have to give up having a machine-readable 
copyright file since Binutils doesn't have one, and also seems convoluted.

Does it seem like my comment in my copyright file may satisfy the intent, or 
that I still need to mangle the file? Similar packages don't seem to be as 
meticulous on this issue.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: