Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2013-01-16 07:27:25) On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective license. ...and will start do similar for all the other packages that I am involved in, as I examine copyrights and licensing for those and convert to machine-readable format. TBH, I think the best way to go from here is to extend the specification to include extra fields that cover the effective license of given binary packages, and have debhelper and similar packaging tools install appropriate package.copyright files from that. Debhelper already supports debian/package.copyright files. Copyright file format 1.0 already supports expressing effective license (by use of the header section Copyright field). The mechanism I had in mind was to generate debian/package.copyright files during build, based on debian/copyright and debian/package.copyright.in files or some such, It would be good to have a _future_ copyright file format version more clearly document the use(s) of the header section Copyright field. I find it best, however, to postpone discussing further deveopment of that file format until after the release of Wheezy. Maybe it would be good to have improved standardized mechanisms to expand/compute/whatever copyright files for binary pakages, but I personally have little imagination what that might be, as I have only now had the epiphany of how those makes sense, and have zero experience in composing them as of yet. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced that such considerations are important, I still think that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified. Hi, I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always considered the right place to document copyright information for individual binary packages is package.copyright, which ends up as simply /u/s/d/package/copyright. I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the technical point. An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev packages does not harm. Regards, thibaut. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9IbKAAoJEJOUU0jg3ChATuoQAMCR2IMvkL0N3zuYajUOG7a8 6kn5yEr1x0EfP05qGRU4xVjGKV+Xsx/o2fN9zsOhRdNeVSeYjTuuyrzd/RwwGquP FJq19UppiUxouOIcfP4tJ3KorjdlI7IyVZhtVBzd5czGO+PAnhisWVWvXC7kSP9a HwpIFLtouksCBIaaUHLoO/jWELq3X8Nme8npLSrCiqAFNjpigxDkVyp6sl0JwlrC opA7Rf64tc/0OBBgeh7azaYmK6ujoN5njuqCxavRzPE3duhblUeM4VBcxMk3LrTn GXgRHfVnmF/hGhHhfnRtUjHN7obO7Q7q/iXgQv/cOn3XEnH8m4G28HwiX5JwLyBN lIDpLtRzExI9Sc4dvvAolrqlg7x0GaA8w9/SkUu3guAhA4PvkmiFng5yekGs5DUi 5HafW94HSy2MrwOJc856T3ANGTPhspRkCzbIAK67nmz2TxPgLzUOUba9niot0bvw eMHRMmW7GnL0OrgC8xtwt6/xNsEmPV5lwovJueR1EAFC3MdYyAmE0MdZbhQp8aYE Pap4CIS3gH5vMKm0OofhvH2S0n2esLaJF3uBlmsrE/hocgUxYIYxDYwNd2Adxc2o X5yS6fzkWRDv/YgrfhQOqln5dI0Lm/nm2HajjoHYMxmFo+KcQsGd8lQ/9B+2ljQ6 DQkNjaWHyHs5IUHcUYlv =WhCJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced that such considerations are important, I still think that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified. Hi, I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always considered the right place to document copyright information for individual binary packages is package.copyright, which ends up as simply /u/s/d/package/copyright. I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the technical point. An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev packages does not harm. I am aware of the techical feature of debhelper to install per-package copyright files. In the past I saw that as an indication that indeed the copyright file was intended to cover both source and effective licensing. During my partitipation in defining the copyright file format 1.0, however, it was brought up that there is no such requirement for effective licensing - the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 15/01/2013 14:41, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. [...] Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced that such considerations are important, I still think that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified. Hi, I'm surprised it has not yet been pointed out, but I have always considered the right place to document copyright information for individual binary packages is package.copyright, which ends up as simply /u/s/d/package/copyright. I'm also surprised to not find it right away in either policy or devref. Anyway, man dh_installdocs at least doccuments the technical point. An additional README.Debian at least in the relevant -dev packages does not harm. Hi again, All I'm saying is that the natural place to look for such information is the binary package's copyright file, a.k.a. debian/package.copyright, and that neither devref not Policy mention the latter. In the past I saw that as an indication that indeed the copyright file was intended to cover both source and effective licensing. Yes, that's also my reading of Policy 12.5: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. In other words, copyright file (as distributed in the binary package) must cover not only the copyright (which applies mostly on the source) but also the distribution license (which applies on the binaries as well). Note the *must* here in the binary package, in contrast with *should* debian/copyright in the source package: A copy of the file which will be installed in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the source package. which implicitly allows for debian/package.copyright in relevant cases, i.e. when the applicable license terms is not the same for all the binaries, e.g. some binary linked with GPLed code. During my partitipation in defining the copyright file format 1.0, however, it was brought up that there is no such requirement for effective licensing - the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind this, because I think you where right in the first place. In the first quote above, its [...] distribution license refers to the package. Very clearly, package here must be read as binary package, which you grab from a few lines later: /usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory in /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source and the first package Depends on the second. Kind regards, Thibaut. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9WeGAAoJEJOUU0jg3ChA+jwQAJaGlJm6ljuzYFV266yQr0V/ Kva9ofaeBSxJPMBvipudv53Rcd51QykG6HHyKYBzmBGiDL0VS0hj8qXTEhCO2ECW 6Joe2ILzzBi3QZcGV1mQ3TrkfbjEgBO6/bG1fh1HZn4DWC5IENnJsff3zPBldPA3 zQ65dq3atZ8FEZoAxHGRPbJYHBBDBrLyq3AlyKoXOdGjl67ciPYptHei+cn7y0Ti i0CUfspEY70UCiYtw/YP9mCpEzIVlx+gYQly0ct6td2Rx142lhG0Jhwp7rMrn7nN tD+rOxc1X/5a3bFGGXxIeDvzJw/2OECVpKDvMGw0Wh4L3rUjYej+WSl9DMVSkzrK /DnjL6RhyulFSwMHPLdELMr+1CzbmpCXi8UkGshBEnML5NvzOn44yvrJNju0wkW/ fjZTtXfIUoMweI2VIpCPK3Aa4bffG1YCrLjOg3/WIf2MNsLMTIv1BUGTo9uDz6hP 3uaKJDG0AUruiqtplvG4P8UTBSwBY8Af/Pyp9vXOWdcLAp/A1OyE+lfLcEj2lC3M xGUIz35gBiNjrUJRf2PloXrIqHFedHCGhFn/2u6a2YerblKUcs7MV87Ujqs8oltR Fmuk50SIa1FAvaTwrqocQYkkohhRdZHNQXozvNpQdzjuTiVm3BvpUonm8PGHpkfq 9hLnuuCdzVGAm6LVYPiO =+ZnX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. That's not true. The purpose of the copyright file has *always* been to ensure that the license for a given binary package is correctly documented in that package. It's just that the safest way to ensure this is by documenting the entire license for the source package in debian/copyright and copying that file to each of the binary packages. Unfortunately we took a wrong turn somewhere and started considering debian/copyright itself the requirement, and that's a *bug*. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-01-15 20:59:35) On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. That's not true. The purpose of the copyright file has *always* been to ensure that the license for a given binary package is correctly documented in that package. It's just that the safest way to ensure this is by documenting the entire license for the source package in debian/copyright and copying that file to each of the binary packages. Unfortunately we took a wrong turn somewhere and started considering debian/copyright itself the requirement, and that's a *bug*. Ahh, I think I realize now where I went wrong: the copyright file is ambiguous! Even if I recall and understand correctly that during the DEP5 process leading to copyright file format 1.0 it was pointed out that the debian/copyright is only about source, that is *not* the same as saying that the /usr/share/doc/package/copyright files are only about source. Source and effective licensing just happen to be identical in simple cases. And copyright file format 1.0 just happen to only verbosely cover source copyright (as I recall the addition of copyright field in header section was only late in the process). Apologies to previous posters who might have seen this all along and tried to point it out to me. :-/ I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective license. ...and will start do similar for all the other packages that I am involved in, as I examine copyrights and licensing for those and convert to machine-readable format. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective license. ...and will start do similar for all the other packages that I am involved in, as I examine copyrights and licensing for those and convert to machine-readable format. TBH, I think the best way to go from here is to extend the specification to include extra fields that cover the effective license of given binary packages, and have debhelper and similar packaging tools install appropriate package.copyright files from that. -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : I am not happy at all with cluttering the binary package description with license blabla. I would do so only as last resort Dear Reinhard, Francesco and everybody, I think that the Debian copyright file of libav 6:9.1-1 is clear enough with its comment in the header, and that it is best to keep the license information out of the description of the package. Newest progress(?) on this is commit e3731d with this commit message: Document all licensing of binary packages in README.Debian (not partly as comment in copyright file), to avoid confusing source That change has not yet released but sits in our VCS. Could you please comment on that? Sorry, I can't figure out how to reference it at our public anoncms URL, but it is commit e3731d at git.debian.org:/git/pkg-multimedia/libav . Note that the machine-readable format also allows License fields in the header paragraph to give the license information for the package as a whole. I am aware of that. But I am not convinced that *any* of the licensing formally covered by the copyright file format 1.0 are about the licensing of _binary_ packages. It is my understanding that they all are about sources only, not effective reasoned licenses. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : I am not happy at all with cluttering the binary package description with license blabla. I would do so only as last resort Dear Reinhard, Francesco and everybody, I think that the Debian copyright file of libav 6:9.1-1 is clear enough with its comment in the header, and that it is best to keep the license information out of the description of the package. Newest progress(?) on this is commit e3731d with this commit message: Document all licensing of binary packages in README.Debian (not partly as comment in copyright file), to avoid confusing source That change has not yet released but sits in our VCS. Could you please comment on that? Sorry, I can't figure out how to reference it at our public anoncms URL, but it is commit e3731d at git.debian.org:/git/pkg-multimedia/libav . I think it is: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libav.git;a=blob;f=debian/README.Debian;h=3d1180db2a75a61cd7cd29914c1dc48d8bdd0ba2;hb=e3731d1b854c04e119853d13d0d16293d9bc201e And the commit diff is: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libav.git;a=commitdiff;h=e3731d1b854c04e119853d13d0d16293d9bc201e I am not too convinced this is a progress: it's true that it consolidates all the considerations about the effective licenses of the binary packages in one place. This is indeed good. But I think it chooses an unfortunate place: not where I would look at, when searching for licensing information... I am afraid that those useful considerations would be read by very few interested people, as long as they are buried deep in a README.Debian file. Note that the machine-readable format also allows License fields in the header paragraph to give the license information for the package as a whole. I am aware of that. But I am not convinced that *any* of the licensing formally covered by the copyright file format 1.0 are about the licensing of _binary_ packages. It is my understanding that they all are about sources only, not effective reasoned licenses. This is generally true, as far as I know, in the sense that only the licenses for the source files are _required_ to be documented in a debian/copyright file. But I think that some additional considerations about the effective licenses of binary packages are not forbidden, if placed in a Comment field. Since currently there is no better place (at least, not one I am aware of) to carry these considerations and since I am convinced that such considerations are important, I still think that the comment should be kept in the debian/copyright file and clarified. Something along the lines of | The effective license for all the binary packages is the GPL, not the | LGPL, because GPL-licensed parts of ffmpeg were enabled and some binary | packages link against GPL-licensed libraries. | Additionally, some binary packages directly or indirectly link against | libraries that are licensed under the Apache License v2.0: these binary | packages are effectively distributed under the GPL v3 or later (rather | than GPL v2 or later). | | Binary packages under GPL-2+ : | libav-doc (apart from one stylesheet under Apache-2.0), | libav-source, libavcodec-dev, libavutil-dev, libavutil*, libavcodec*, | libavresample*, libavresample-dev, libswscale*, libswscale-dev | | Binary packages under GPL-3+ : | libav-tools, libavcodec-extra-*, libavdevice*, libavdevice-dev, | libavformat*, libavformat-dev, libavfilter*, libavfilter-dev | | Transitional packages : | ffmpeg-doc, libavdevice-extra-*, libavfilter-extra-*, | libavformat-extra-*, libavutil-extra-*, libswscale-extra-* | | The libav-dbg package includes debug symbols from all the other | packages. Please fix any inaccurate part, of course. In http://bugs.debian.org/694657#120 you say: [to determine effective licensing of binary packages] One needs to examine the combined licensing of all parts of the chain - which is a huge job, I agree. First step in imporving that job is to make _source_ licensing machine readable *without* changing anything else, and a later step is to hopefully make a tool that traverses all build-dependencies to warn about potential incompatibilities. This future scenario is really interesting and desirable, but, although I am a perfectionist myself, I think we should acknowledge that we have nothing of the kind right now. Hence, while striving to achieve that great goal, we should implement an admittedly
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
tags 698019 help stop Copying debian-legal and netgen mostly for notifying them about this issue. Also, see the call for help below. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: Source: libav Version: 6:9.1-1 Severity: important Hello again, while trying to improve [1] a comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file, it became apparent [2] that all the binary packages built from libav are effectively under GPL-2+ or even under GPL-3+ (as for libavcodec-extra-*, but also for the ones that link with it). [1] http://bugs.debian.org/694657#85 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/694657#100 As explained in my reply [3], I think that this situation is not clear at all, for people who just read the debian/copyright file and/or look at the binary package long descriptions! [3] http://bugs.debian.org/694657#105 Without intimate knowledge of the libav package build process, one may wrongly think that those GPL-licensed files only end up into the binary packages named after the directories where they live... Without digging into all the dependencies, one may fail to notice all the cross linking among the binary packages built from libav... The situation has been explicitly documented in README.Debian for literally ages: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libav.git;a=blob;f=debian/README.Debian I agree that this might be easily overlooked, ad a better place to make it more obvious, such as in debian/copyright, would be great. I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. I am not happy at all with cluttering the binary package description with license blabla. I would do so only as last resort I really hope you are going to clarify this situation. We have recently (well, most if not all kudos and blame go to Jonas for using his CDBS based generator) revised debian/copyright to conform to DEP5. I'm not sure at all how to express this particular situation in the new syntax and am therefore requesting help in form of patches against the debian/copyright file as found in debian/experimental. Cheers, Reinhard -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. Le Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : I am not happy at all with cluttering the binary package description with license blabla. I would do so only as last resort Dear Reinhard, Francesco and everybody, I think that the Debian copyright file of libav 6:9.1-1 is clear enough with its comment in the header, and that it is best to keep the license information out of the description of the package. Note that the machine-readable format also allows License fields in the header paragraph to give the license information for the package as a whole. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented
Source: libav Version: 6:9.1-1 Severity: important Hello again, while trying to improve [1] a comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file, it became apparent [2] that all the binary packages built from libav are effectively under GPL-2+ or even under GPL-3+ (as for libavcodec-extra-*, but also for the ones that link with it). [1] http://bugs.debian.org/694657#85 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/694657#100 As explained in my reply [3], I think that this situation is not clear at all, for people who just read the debian/copyright file and/or look at the binary package long descriptions! [3] http://bugs.debian.org/694657#105 Without intimate knowledge of the libav package build process, one may wrongly think that those GPL-licensed files only end up into the binary packages named after the directories where they live... Without digging into all the dependencies, one may fail to notice all the cross linking among the binary packages built from libav... I think that the effective licensing status of the binary packages (GPL-2+ or GPL-3+) should be explicitly and clearly documented in the comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in the binary package long descriptions, as well. I really hope you are going to clarify this situation. Thanks for your time! Bye. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
