Am 12.12.2017 um 03:39 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> writes: > >> I don't want to open another can of worms yet but I believe even if >> someone changed this phrase and we simply stated MIT as license in >> debian/copyright we still wouldn't violate any law because >> debian/copyright is something Debian specific which we impose on >> ourselves and not required by the license terms itself. The license >> simply requires: > >> "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included >> in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." > >> This is always satisfied as long as you don't remove the license from >> the original file. > > The binaries built from the source code are a "substantial portion of the > Software." We have to include the license and copyright statement with > the binaries, since they're a derivative work, and those packages don't > contain the source code and the original license notices. We always distribute the source code along with the binary packages. This condition would still be satisfied. If it works for Red Hat / Fedora it should work for Debian too.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature