[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proper notation for common licenses



Hi,

On 22.09.2014 21:57, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 22/09/14 17:15, Markus Koschany wrote:
[...]
> The point headed "Its not enough to have the following two-liner" in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
> appears to be intended to be a requirement to reproduce the license
> grant in the copyright file, even if the work is under the GPL or
> another license in common-licenses.
> 
> I'm not sure why the ftp-masters require the license grant to be copied
> into the copyright file, and it would be nice if there was wording in
> (capital P) Policy backing this up, or a definitive statement from the
> ftp-masters saying that, yes, they require license grants to be quoted
> even if the license text does not need to be copied (and preferably
> why); but at the moment the email to which you referred is as canonical
> a statement of (small p) policy as we have.

[...]

Indeed, I was talking about the requirement to reproduce the
"license grant" (thanks) of all common licenses in debian/copyright
again and again. In my opinion the simplified version improves the
readability of the copyright file without diminishing the accuracy of
the copyright statement and saves time that could be better spent elsewhere.

As you know for yourself that would be especially useful for many games
that are partly licensed under GPL-2, GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+ with a random
external helper script under contrib/ (GPL-3+) and another Apache-2.0
licensed script. So you end up sometimes with half a dozen standalone
paragraphs for common licenses including the license grant, not to
mention the additional BSD, Expat and of course Creative Commons
licenses, which are unfortunately not part of the common licenses
(although they are very common for all sorts of multimedia software and
games) and must be copied verbatim.

[...]

> It would be great if the ftp-masters could confirm whether what I've
> said in this mail is true, and the reasoning behind it.

+1

Regards,

Markus


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: