On 2017-12-12 at 08:40, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 12.12.2017 um 03:39 schrieb Russ Allbery: > >> 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. > > We always distribute the source code along with the binary packages. > This condition would still be satisfied. If it works for Red Hat / > Fedora it should work for Debian too.
Do you argue, then, that the act of copying from server to client which occurs when an end user runs 'apt-get install packagename' on a not-previously-downloaded package does not constitute distribution? Because running that command does not (typically) pull down the source code, but it certainly does pull down the binary package - and that looks like distribution to me. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
