Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > reluctant to do this. Too much information kills information. > I don't for any of my "autoconfed" packages. The output files have > "do whatever" type of license, as does most output files of this type.
This makes me wonder about ppport.h in perl-XS packages; by default, the generated ppport.h comes with a note saying it's licensed under the same terms as perl itself. However, if you run "perl ppport.h --strip", all documentation *and* licensing information was removed. My feeling is that if the authors of Devel::PPPort allow the license to be removed (while still leaving other comments intact in the header file), that means that they really dont care how the released file is licensed. While most perl packages are released under the perl license, some are released under a BSD-like license, etc. How does debian feel about this? Does a perl package with the ppport.h stripped need a mention of the perl license, if the package itself is not under that license? Thanks, Tyler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]