Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> writes: >>> I don't think anyone disagrees with this, including the ftp-masters. The >>> question is whether the source package also needs a copyright file of its >>> own. >> As we are distributing these files, it seems reasonable to document their >> licence. But the Policy is not clear about that requirement. > > We distribute source and binary. So the copyright file has to document > the contents of them all. Most commonly packages have exactly 1 of those > files, copied everywhere. Then it has to document all, and the file > ending up in binary packages will obviously document the source tarball > too. > Now, you can go and split the file, and have one per binary package > seperated, as well as one documenting all of it once for the source. > Besides that being a fair bit of useless extra work, for both you and > ftpmaster, it seems pretty pointless to do, as the only thing that > happens with just one file for all is "slightly more text in the file as > the binary may need".
Aren't the licenses of source files generally documented by upstream, either by e.g. the COPYING file or inline within the files themselves? Why is there a requirement to duplicate this information in the copyright file? A binary package needs a copyright file because the copyright notices would otherwise be stripped out or obfuscated. That's not true for the source package though. -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hbiy4hbc....@bignachos.net
