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

Re: Copyright format “License” field: grant of license, license text?



Quoting Ben Finney (2015-05-21 02:14:43)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>
>> Quoting Ben Finney (2015-05-20 08:46:44)
>>> Is there a place in ‘debian/copyright’ for the text granting license 
>>> to the work, separate from the text of the license itself?
[…]
> Perhaps an update to the copyright format can allow this information 
> to be captured in a standard machine-parseable way.

Yes.  I believe the formally correct approach is to file a 
bugreport against debian-copyright.

Will you do it?  I find you far better at phrasing things than me.


>> The pattern I use now is by use of self-invented pseudo-fields 
>> License-in-Comment (for verbatim text forbidden in License field) and 
>> Comment-in-License (for non-verbatim text commonly expected), like 
>> this (from libtype-tiny-perl):
>>
>>> Files: *
>>> Copyright: 2012-2014, Toby Inkster <tobyink@cpan.org>
>>> License: Artistic or GPL-1+
>>> Comment:
>>>  License:
>>>  .
>>>  This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it 
>>>  under the same terms as the Perl 5 programming language system 
>>>  itself.
>>>  .
>>>  Comment:
>>>  .
>>>  Perl 5 is licensed under either the 'Artistic license' or the 'GNU 
>>>  General Public License' version 1 or later.
>
> I'd like to propose a new field, “License-Grant” (maybe a better name 
> can be found). The field is optional, and its value is the verbatim 
> text from the copyright holder, the text that grants some license.
>
> How about this::
> 
>     Files: *
>     Copyright: 2012-2014, Toby Inkster <tobyink@cpan.org>
>     License: Artistic or GPL-1+
>     License-Grant:
>         This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify 
>         it under the same terms as the Perl 5 programming language 
>         system itself.
>     Comment:
>         Perl 5 is licensed under either the 'Artistic license' or the 
>         'GNU General Public License' version 1 or later.
> 
> Would that field be a good addition to the copyright format 
> definition?

Looks good to me.

In fact, if nothing even more sensible emerge I will start using that 
pattern right now (format 1.0 permits undefined fields).

 - Jonas


P.S.  I will probably also drop comment-in-license pseudo-field and 
instead reference shared license in regular comment field - and treat 
warnings about License field missing that reference as a bug in lintian.  
But that's arguably separate issue than the one you raise, so fine you 
simply ignored commenting on that


-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: