Don Armstrong <[email protected]> writes: > I could never figure out how to separate the license of the binary files > from the licenses of the source files used to generate the binaries in > all but trivial cases, so I've avoided drawing distinctions between the > two. I'm also not sure if there's some case where the distinction > actually matters. [If there is, pointing it out would be useful.]
Well, one place where it could be useful in the sense of saving time is where it's a simplification. For example, packages that have mixed GPL and LGPL code generate binaries that are solely GPL, so there's no need to add the LGPL information for those individual source files that are LGPL to debian/copyright if you're only documenting the license of the binary package. (This *doesn't* help in the more common case of mixed GPL and BSD code, since the separate BSD license requirement to preserve the copyright notice and terms and conditions still applies, I believe.) -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
