Jakub Wilk <jw...@debian.org> writes: > But I always thought that we were supposed to documented license and > copyright holders of all files in the _source_ package, so having > copyright files that vary with binary package doesn't make sense to me.
Well, we're supposed to document the copyright holders of the source package (although my query to ftp-master about exactly what that means has unfortunately gone unanswered), but we're also supposed to document the license of the binary packages for our users. One nice thing that having separate copyright files per binary package would let you do is be unambiguous that a particular binary package with an OpenSSL dependency contains only BSD-licensed code even if the source package has other GPL-licensed code, so that you know for certain there's no clash with the OpenSSL license. That's come up a few times before. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
