On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote: > Removing the Open Watcom source files would be a GPL violation unless upstream > explicitly adds a license to the generated assembler files.
IANAL but wouldn't the general license from the package kick in if there is no license mentioned in a source file? > It's pretty hard to believe that someone could write and maintain 15,000 lines > of assembler code without a single comment. But that's not the point. It's not about whether or not you believe them, it's about what the license dictates. > Sure, you can modify those assembler files but they are just a post-processed > compiler output. That means in practice you can't modify it in a meaningful > way. > In fact the files say "Auto Generated source file. Do not edit." ;-) Ok, for the sake of my argument let's assumed that line was removed. :) > For example we would be unable to cherry-pick a BIOS fix from trunk. Good point. > With the same argument you could declare every disassembled binary that is > built > from high level language code as source code. True. I'm not saying it is, I just wonder whether our restriction makes sense. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
