Lars Wirzenius wrote:
to, 2009-06-11 kello 15:01 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi kirjoitti:
- and a reason
That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
files: their customers may need to get a list of licenses used in the
(subset) of packages the derivative provides them, and this would get
easier with DEP5. For Debian itself, this is not sufficient reason to
bother.
Would Debian benefit from being able to easily query for things like
"packages linking to OpenSSL, licensed under GPL, but without an
exception"?
But debian/copyright has not enough data to do these checks.
debian/copyright is a source only collection of license (and
copyrights with PEP5). It includes licenses of non-used file.
But no assessment on the licenses of binary programs is done
(including source file, compiling, linking, ...).
This is a very difficult task (and outside sources: it depends
on architectures and on runtime environment).
It would be nice to have the license of binary files, but
I think we are far to the target, and the PEP5 helps
very little (I think PEP5 purpose is not about this task).
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
