On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:34:17PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > > (For example, up until I > > started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never > > documented the license or copyright information for any of the > > Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern about > > that.)
> That's one of the grey corners. So far, my understanding is that they are not > listed because they are only in the source tarball, and also autogenerated. > The usual understanding seems that the licenses of these build scripts are > documented in the corresponding auto* package and that should be sufficient. However, the exception for works only in the source tarball is not applied consistently, even when pointed out to the ftp team that a given license is not applicable to the binary packages. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/07/msg00017.html -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
