On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 09:46:04 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2016-08-06 23:37, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 05:00:09PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > >> as you somehow add jquery.js to your doc-package, please add its license > >> to your debian/copyright. > > > > The jquery.js is installed by doxygen in the documentation process. It > > does not belong to the source package (the full autogenerated > > documentation provided by upstream was intentionally removed to avoid > > compressed JS files). I wonder why I should add licenses of files that > > are not part of the source package and do not even have an idea how I > > could do this syntactically correctly - lintian would claim an unused > > copyright paragraph and IMHO lintian is correct here. > > A bug has been filed against lintian about this, see #736360. > > This does seem like one of the intended use cases of the "Built-Using" > field, as Helmut and Jakub discuss. > > Policy ยง 7.8: > | Some binary packages incorporate parts of other packages when built > | but do not have to depend on those packages. Examples include > | linking with static libraries or incorporating source code from > | another package during the build. In this case, the source packages > | of those other packages are a required part of the complete source > | (the binary package is not reproducible without them). > The policy text is way too broad, Built-Using is really about GPL compliance, and jquery isn't GPL. See #688251.
Cheers, Julien