Bastian Germann: >> In fact there is nowhere in the d/copyright file format to put this >> information; and it would not be efficient to do so since the information >> already exists in the d/copyright of those other packages. > > Maybe there is nowhere in the DEP-5 format, which is not mandatory by now. > This inefficiency is why I suggested to contact FTP Master about it. I do not > think, there is a good mechanism for it in Debian right now. Maybe, there > should be a similar field to Built-Using that is not about source retaining > but about applicable licenses from other packages. >
(Note: the name "DEP-5" refers to when the format was just a proposal, but now it is the "official" format.) The current mechanism is to look in the d/copyright of the other package. What do you think is bad or not good about it? Taking a step back for some perspective, I also suggest you might want to spend your own time on other things that are more productive and have more real-world impact. Nobody is going to get sued over this, there is no legal basis for doing so as the license information is already in an easy-to-access place, namely the d/copyright of the other package. This will be my last message in the thread because I also want to spend my time doing more constructive things. Ximin -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
