On 08/05/12 16:23, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
> don't include a license.
Binary packages from the same source with a strictly-versioned
dependency are also allowed to have a symlink like
/usr/share/doc/libgfshare-dev -> libgfshare1 (although
/u/s/d/libgfshare-dev/copyright -> ../libgfshare1/copyright is not
allowed), potentially resulting in the .deb not containing any copyright
information at all; and for a typical (L)GPL package, the binary
packages also don't satisfy their own license (to do that, you need the
source package).
I think this implies that our unit of license-compliance is the source
package, not the binary package - and I suspect the reason we want that
property is that a source package is the smallest unit that the archive
software will add or remove from a suite, so as long as each version of
each source package is compliant, the suite as a whole is compliant at
all times (which is the actual goal).
S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fa9465f.6050...@debian.org
