Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-12-21 Thread Steve Langasek
Hello, On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it > would be useful to add an optional header (named "Binary-Package" or > whatever), to state which binary package is using that file and license. > The rati

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-11-07 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: > I think that we are still far from producing copyright files specific to > binary > packages There are already copyright files in binary packages that are different to the source package debian/copyright; some of the source packages I've

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-11-07 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT a écrit : > > Exemple 1: > > File: doc/info/* > > License: GFDL-NON-FREE > > Binary-Package: none > The package contains a file covered by a not-so-free license, but > that file isn't used to build the binary file. And the file isn't > shipp

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-11-07 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Frank Lin PIAT dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:47:52PM +0100]: > Exemple 2: > > File: foo.c > > License: GPL-2 > > Binary-Package: foo > > > > File: doc/info/* > > License: GFDL-NON-FREE > > Binary-Package: foo-doc-is-non-free > The source package produces both a free and non-free package. > > Thi

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-11-04 Thread Robert Collins
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 13:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > The rational is that sooner or later, we will want to use the > > machine-interpretable copyright file to validate packages freeness, > > license compatibilities and so on. > > Interesting. So you think a single source package could produ

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-11-04 Thread Ben Finney
Frank Lin PIAT writes: > As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it > would be useful to add an optional header There is only one header in a DEP-5 copyright file. I think you mean “add an optional field to the Files section”. > (named "Binary-Package" or whatever), to

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-11-04 Thread Neil Williams
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:47:52 +0100 Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > Hello, > > As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it > would be useful to add an optional header (named "Binary-Package" or > whatever), to state which binary package is using that file and license. You'll need

DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

2009-11-04 Thread Frank Lin PIAT
Hello, As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it would be useful to add an optional header (named "Binary-Package" or whatever), to state which binary package is using that file and license. The rational is that sooner or later, we will want to use the machine-interpreta