On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 03:37:17PM +0100, Attila Csipa wrote: > On Sunday 13 December 2009 15:13:54 Mustali Dalal wrote: > > Purging copyright files does not seem right; they are tiny and have legal > > bearing. > > > > Since a lot, if not all, apps currently in testing use GPL or other FOSS > > license, I would guess there be good reasons to keep the copyright file > > installed with the package. Would there be license violation if a copyright > > file is not installed with the package? > > > > or is this a non-issue for developers?
Not being a lawyer, I did the only logical thing and asked other people who were't lawyers either. Well, #gnu really since that was the place where I supposed license nerds might congregate... My impression is it isn't a legal issue technically (happy to be corrected, not being a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination). But in principle I would usually expect a license to accompany the distribution of software I developed. Whether I would consider it sufficient that it is in the .deb is another matter. > I'm wondering maybe we could have a license package we could depend on and > then just use a softlink or something similar ? A Depends: license-gpl > (>=3.0) > sounds simple enough to me and then the license is crystal clear and we don't > have to duplicate the license for each package and the license package can > provide all the legalese. It would also simplify checking/verifying proper > licensing in the autobuilder. Just a thought. Well, there's already /usr/share/common-licenses > Regards, > Attila > _______________________________________________ > maemo-developers mailing list > maemo-developers@maemo.org > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers -- import sig _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
