Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> This sort of sounds like Built-Using: only needs to contain things
>> which the package doesn't already Depends: (or perhaps even
on. [Which would resolve the archive licensing
> To to usable to ensure GPL compliance, Built-Using needs to specify the
> precise version of a package that is embedded into another.
> So even though debian-installer Build-Depends: glibc-pic,
> it still needs Built-Using: eglibc (= 2.13-35)
Yes. Built-Using has to be more precise than Build-Depends, so we can't
just rely on Build-Depends.
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Maybe we should say that Built-Using is only required if the license
>> requires that the source be available? (Not sure how to phrase that.)
>> The problem that it was trying to solve originally was fairly specific
>> to the GPL, IIRC.
> Makes sense to me, assuming the gcc runtime library exception allows not
> providing source corresponding to the libgcc.a linked into a binary.
You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by
combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such
propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that
all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You
may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice,
consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
The definition of "Eligible Compilation Processes" is kind of complicated,
but it includes building with GCC or using a non-GCC compiler and
explicitly linking with libgcc.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com