On 7/13/15, 10:43 PM, "Jochen Theodorou" <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote:
>Am 14.07.2015 07:26, schrieb Alex Harui: >> >> >> On 7/13/15, 10:05 PM, "Jochen Theodorou" <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: >>> >>> then source and binary distribution have to have different >>> NOTICE/LICENSE files? >> >> Yep, I think of it as the list of allergens in the package. If you use >> peanut oil to cook the raw ingredients, you’d better tell the consumer. > >ok, but there is no harm in listing allergens that are not actually in >there. Hmm. I don’t agree with that. I’ll bet food labelers are required to be accurate. > So why can't we have a single NOTICE/LICENSE file that covers >both cases? Is it not possible to say something that the binary >distribution will additionally include this and that? Having to have two >distinct files looks unnecessarily complex to me I think more than one project “assembles” the L & N files as part of the build. You can often append the additional binary package information to the source package’s L & N. I don’t know if any project is permitted to ship an L & N in the source package that delineates what things are only in the binary package. People with more experience will answer that. -Alex
