On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 02:37:49PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote: >>I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in >>README.source rather than in debian/copyright; > >Hi, > >I believe this belongs in copyright. This is based on two >considerations: > >1) debian/copyright is (should be) the central repository for >legal information for the source package as well as for all the >binary packages it builds;
We're talking about files that have been removed and are consequently *not* part of the source package. Even if we conclude that debian/copyright is the right place to document *what* has been removed from the upstream source, I certainly disagree that this would include documenting the *license* of the removed files in debian/copyright, and that's not what has been asked for here. At most, I think best practice is to document what was removed and give a short explanation of why the removal was necessary; that doesn't imply reproducing the problematic license, just stating what the problematic license terms are. >2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to >licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification >of the source package, which _is_ the licensed work. Deleting files is done when those files don't meet the DFSG, so I don't see how this can ever be a problem with a free license. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
