On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 14:25 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently.
And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow.
That's a flawed analogy. Virtually, all jurisdictions require work to be original to qualify for copyright.
How is a rpm package signature not "original"? It's dependent on a number of factors, not all of which are publicly accessible (e.g., the private signing key), and some of which are variable (e.g., the build time).
Painting a landscape requires effort, and originality, mechanically making a digest with encryption software doesn't.
Nor does pushing the button on a digital camera, and yet Flickr is filled with the results of that non-effort. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that anyone challenging the license of that non-effort would likely be laughed out of court.
Anyway, let's not continue with *this* slippery slope. The next guy will proclaim that downloading software and recompressing it with bzip2 constitutes a new work ;).
Or a derivative of the original work. But adding a signature to an already-created package does not make the signature a derivative of the contents of the package.
(Once again, IANAL)