On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 13:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > The rational is that sooner or later, we will want to use the > > machine-interpretable copyright file to validate packages freeness, > > license compatibilities and so on. > > Interesting. So you think a single source package could produce binary > packages that are each judged differently for their DFSG status? I > wonder what the FTP masters would say to that. > > (That could read sarcastically; it's not. I'm interested to know.)
I don't know what the FTP masters will say, but it is, sadly, how licences interact; given a single upstream that builds two binaries, one which links to a GPL library, and one that doesn't (and which are packaged into separate debs), then we've clearly got different constraints placed on the two debs. -Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
