Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a > > > package called 'license-gpl' ? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: > > > I suggested that, and it might be sufficient, but only if the tools > > like alien actually do enforce the dependency. > > Huh? Perhaps I'm missing something, but what does "alien" have to do > with anything? > > Either one is converting a package from another format for use on > Debian, or one is making a package for another packaging system. AFAIK, > alien does not, and cannot properly do dependencies. (How does one > set up dependencies for a Slackware package?) So what is your point? > Correct me if I'm wrong.
The dependency might be fine to satisfy the point of the license if it were being enforced, but it isn't enforced by alien, and so the fact that there is a dependency (implied or otherwise) on some separate package that contains the license is irrelevant to the fact that fileutils binaries themselves must, by the terms of the GPL, be distributed along with their license.
