On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 12:25:15AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 04:40:44PM -0400, Kyle Edwards wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 21:00 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > If the libraries in question are DFSG-free themselves, there's no > > > DFSG issue and you don't need to remove them from the tarball (and > > > we'd generally encourage not modifying the upstream tarball > > > unnecessarily for upload to Debian). The policy about bundling is > > > separate from the DFSG. Of course it'd be incumbent on whoever's > > > doing the Debian upload to actually check the licensing status. > > > > Thank you Colin, this is good to know. In that case, I will investigate > > VTK's DFSG issues when I get a chance. If there's something in there > > with a licensing issue, then we as upstream would like to fix it. > > Whilst everything Colin wrote is true, there is also the detail that we > do a copyright and license check for every file shipped in the tarball. > If there are too many convenience copies this can easily outgrow the > patience (or more simply the available time) of the maintainer, at which > point repacking the upstream tarball is way simpler, easier and quicker. > It's a convenience call the maintainer decides, but one that IMHO always > ought to be done because with our current tooling removing files from > the upstream tarball is an automated process that takes seconds, where > the license check easily takes much more.
FWIW the "tooling removing files from the upstream tarball is an automated process" is `uscan` and debian/copyright having a 'Files-Excluded:' entry Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
