On Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:21:32 AM MST Peter B wrote: > On 08/03/2025 11:59, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > On Friday, March 7, 2025 11:26:49 PM MST Phil Wyett wrote: > > > > > Test 7 (licenserecon): Information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d/copyright | licensecheck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BSD-2-clause | FSFULLR config.rpath > > > > > > > > I think this is covered by policy 2.3: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, the copyright information for files in the source package > > > > which > > > > > > are only part of its build process, such as autotools files, > > > > need not > > > > > > be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because those files > > > > > > > > do not get installed into the binary package. > > > > > > Indeed, I have filed the issue below to see if we can have > > > > 'licenserecon' > > > > > exclude these from checking. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099786 > > > > Actually, licenserecon’s behavior is correct, although I do understand > > that the policy is written in a way that is easy to misinterpret. > > > > > > Basically, *all* license information must be included in > > debian/copyright. Full stop. > > > > > > Some *copyright* information may be omitted from debian/copyright. > > > > > > Relevant sections of the policy: > > > > > > 2.3 > > > > > > "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its > > distribution *license(s)* in the file /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright.” > > > > > > This is the part that is talking about licenses (emphasis mine in the > > quote). It is communicating that all license information must be > > reflected in debian/copyright, but it isn’t as forceful or as clear as > > it could be. However, it will be clarified later in the policy. > > > > > > "The *copyright* information for files in a package must be copied > > verbatim into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, when all of the > > following hold: > > > > > > "1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright > > information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions; > > > > > > “2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or > > compiled form; and > > > > > > "3. the form in which the files are present in the binary package does > > not include a plain text version of their copyright notices. > > > > > > "Thus, the *copyright information* for files in the source package > > which are only part of its build process, such as autotools files, > > need not be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because > > those files do not get installed into the binary package. Similarly, > > plain text files which include their own copyright information and are > > installed into the binary package unmodified need not have that > > copyright information copied into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright” > > > > > > This section explains when copyright information (emphasis mine in > > quote) may be omitted, including in scenarios such as autotools files. > > > > > > 22.8 > > > > > > "The copyright information for files in a package must be copied > > verbatim into /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/ copyright when all of the > > following hold: > > > > > > "1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright > > information be included in all copies and/or > > > > binary distributions; > > > > > > "2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or > > compiled form; and
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
