Osamu Aoki <[email protected]> writes: > It may be good to have a set of specifically defined file types for > exclusion in DEP-5 policy. Then we can skip listing them in the > copyright file. The helper script can generate a template for the > copyright file in line with the actual practice and not to contradict > with the DEP-5 policy.
The general rule of thumb appears to be that, provided that the files are DFSG-free and don't pose any surprises or conflicts, there's no need to exhaustively document any source files that are only used as part of the build system and don't contribute code to the binary package. I've wanted to document this explicitly in Policy for a while, but the blocker is that I've never been able to get anyone to commit to a clear enough rule that it felt like something we could put in Policy. For example, I'm not sure if it applies to the build system in general, or if it's specifically for Autoconf, Automake, Libtool, and friends, which have very well-known and standard license behavior and are common across vast swaths of the archive. If we had a concrete rule, we could document it in Policy. Personally, I just document the licenses of all of those files in my debian/copyright files, but I also automated that (with a truly awful and horrible Perl script). And I'm not sure that documentation is really of much use. > ( I think the following must not be skipped.) > ( LGPL-2.0+ ) > ( * m4/vapigen.m4 ) I think it's fine to skip that as well if one skips any of this, since it doesn't pose any more license issues than any of the rest of the files you list. (Actually, it probably just converts to GPL-2 or GPL-3 for the purposes of generating the build system, given the license of the source of the rest of the output files to which it contributes.) -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
