On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Russ Allbery: >> So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread. > >> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html > > I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very > cogent arguments for why it's wrong and providing a complete copy of the > GPL with binaries is required.
Hmmm, I really meant that I found point 1 to be quite astute. I agree, the conclusion is quite off. The copyright file is very important in binary packages, and should have full-text licenses. The important aspect of point 1 is the conclusion that at least with the GPL you can distribute any source release as is; meaning that our additional work on the full-text copyright file in the source package is unnecessary. I think this distinction between the needs of the source package copyright file and binary package copyright file is very useful, and can help steer towards a much simplified source copyright file, and yet still satisfy the requirement for full-text binary copyright files. Best wishes, Mike -- 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/CANTw=mpvcms97vy5z9auazykewxkye4ae8shnfnmeqxw5to...@mail.gmail.com
