On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet at 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 at 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. Painting a landscape requires effort, and originality, mechanically making a digest with encryption software doesn't. 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 ;). -- Daniel