Le Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:14:23PM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit : > > I think this implies that our unit of license-compliance is the source > package, not the binary package - and I suspect the reason we want that > property is that a source package is the smallest unit that the archive > software will add or remove from a suite, so as long as each version of > each source package is compliant, the suite as a whole is compliant at > all times (which is the actual goal).
If we include corner cases, then our unit for license compliance is our archive as a whole, as some binary packages include derivatives of source code provided by independant packages at build time. This is tracked with the Built-Using field (ready to be documented in the Policy: http://bugs.debian.org/641153). But usually, it is indeed the source package that is the unit. Otherwise our binary pakcages would not comply with the GPL version 1 and 2. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20120508225343.gc32...@falafel.plessy.net
