Dmitry Shachnev [26/Oct 5:54pm +03] wrote: > Sphinx itself is BSD-2-clause, so it does not have any such > requirement. Do we have an example of a package using Sphinx, the > license of which requires it?
This is the important point. I think you're right: there could only be
an issue if the incorporating package requires distribution.
> Anyway, if it's really required by the license, I would keep things as they
> are currently: in most cases not using ${sphinxdoc:Built-Using} is the right
> thing to do, and when it's required by the license, the maintainer should add
> that field explicitly.
Agreed.
I think we need to keep the mechanism but most or all packages should
not use it.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
