On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:28:50PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > A real-life example from libunistring (which I've filed an ITP for [1]): > The source files that will constitute the resulting library package are > all LGPL-3+'d, but the source tarball also contains a test suite, which > is GPL-3+ (without any exception). Now is the license of the test suite > relevant to the resulting library package, effectivly rendering it > GPL-3+? I don't think so, but looking at a debian/copyright file using > the current DEP-5 format, one cannot really tell that the libunistring > package is actually under the LGPL-3+, hence my suggestion to add > information about which license applies to which binary package.
We can try to address this use case in the DEP, but I think for the most part this is a policy question rather than something to be determined in a DEP defining a file format. There's no legal reason that debian/copyright would need to contain any information at all about the license of the test suite, if that test suite doesn't wind up in the binary package; yet the ftp masters currently reject packages from the archive if debian/copyright doesn't enumerate the licenses for such extra matter. The DEP as currently written is agnostic regarding the level of *detail* that has to be included, it only defines the structure for the detail you choose to include. This can be made more explicit. -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
