Markus Koschany <a...@debian.org> writes: > I don't want to open another can of worms yet but I believe even if > someone changed this phrase and we simply stated MIT as license in > debian/copyright we still wouldn't violate any law because > debian/copyright is something Debian specific which we impose on > ourselves and not required by the license terms itself. The license > simply requires:
> "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included > in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." > This is always satisfied as long as you don't remove the license from > the original file. The binaries built from the source code are a "substantial portion of the Software." We have to include the license and copyright statement with the binaries, since they're a derivative work, and those packages don't contain the source code and the original license notices. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
