Lukas Schwaighofer <[email protected]> writes: > The syslinux-efi binary package contains parts of the gnu-efi package > due to static linking. I believe that, independent of the license > question, in order to satisfy DFSG §2 (“The program must include source > code, […]”) I need to keep using the Built-Using control field. > Especially since it's conceivable that a new version of gnu-efi breaks > compatibility with some specific efi implementation. However, on a > technical level, I don't really see the difference between my case and > linking against glibc, which according to the debian-policy bug used to > discuss this change [1] should not use the Built-Using field.
I don't think you need to change anything about Built-Using. That seems like exactly the sort of reason anticipated by DFSG compliance. The clarification in Policy is because the previous wording would have required literally every program in the archive written in C to declare Built-Using against the version of GCC used to build them because of the nature of libgcc, and at the request of the release team to not use Built-Using for library update purposes. > While thinking about the above problem I noticed something else which > brings me to my second question: Parts of gnu-efi are covered by the > BSD-3-clause license. In order to satisfy the second clause > (“Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > notice […]”) do I need to somehow include the debian/copyright file from > gnu-efi in the syslinux-efi binary package? Yes, or at least the portions relevant to the code that's being statically linked. The resulting binary is a derivative work of the syslinux-efi package, so you need to follow its license. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
