On Sunday, December 23, 2018 08:56:02 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Sean Whitton dixit: > >2.3 & 4.5 > > > > In cases where a package's distribution license explicitly permits > > its copyright information to be excluded from distributions of > > binaries built from the source, a verbatim copy of the package's > > copyright information should normally still be included in the > > copyright file, but it need not be if creating and maintaining a > > copy of that information involves significant time and effort. > > I quite disagree. Downstreams will require the licence information, > and if it’s included in the source package, it’s easy enough to add > it to the binary package, and if not, the above does not apply either. > > I recently did the work to audit swagger-ui-dist, which is built > using “modern web 2.0” tools from over 80 NPM packages, and it took > me some hours, but we now have a licence file for the binary, and > upstream was actually thankful about these efforts. > > I would expect that, even if it’s hard, this to be mandatory part > of packaging anything for Debian. I will be very unamused about > packages without correct corresponding licence information EVEN > IF the upstream licence allows such, because ONLY the presence of > such correct licence information in the Debian package shows that > an actual audit of the legal situation has been done (and only > after that, this decision to not include the information could be > done, and by then, the information will already be there, so it > must (in my opinion) still be included). > > I hereby ask that this change be reverted.
I believe you are misreading the change. The change is not at all about license information. It's about documenting the list of copyright holders if not required by the license. Scott K
