Re: making debian/copyright machine-interpretable
Sam Hocevar wrote:
> Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
That's great, thank you!
Some initial comments:
- Even though the GPL/OpenSSL is mentioned explicitely in the rationale,
the rest of the document doesn't mention a good way to handle it.
- It would be nice (but may be overcomplicated, not sure) to have a
field for compatible licenses, probably only in the "other" license
case. E.g. monsterz could have a Compatible-License: GPL or a
Compatible-License: BSD. That would mostly solve the "other-bsd"/"BSD-like".
- I'm not sure if "License: GPL, BSD" for a file makes any sense (it's
GPL for all intents and purposes) and I'm afraid it will be (ab)used on
a "Files: *" to mean "some files under the BSD, others under the GPL".
Overall, this is a very good thing and besides the benefits you
mentioned wrt GPLv2/GPLv3/CDDL I think it will help us catch many old bugs.