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

Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-12 09:27:12)
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:29:36 +0200
> Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> wrote:
> > Or we could generate DEBIAN/copyright from debian/copyright using data in
> > license-common-list at build time. So maintainers would not need to manage the copying
> > themselves.
>  One problem is, that some software declares that they use some licenses
>  (e.g. MIT), but sometimes they modify the license term itself a bit.
>  So, there's a difference between words in the license list and some words
>  in the included license in such software.
>  It'd be better to find such software and ask upstream to fix it to use
>  proper license terms, by tagging it at BTS. And, it's NOT Debian specific
>  issues, so it may be better to ask folks to join such a movement then, IMHO.

I can only assume that the proposal for an automated DEBIAN/copyright
file is limited to source files *possible* to automatically process, and
consequently only relates to debian/copyright files written in the
machine-readable format.

The problem you describe about ambiguous MIT-derived licensing cannot,
in by understanding, occur using the machine-readable format - only with
less strictly structured debian/copyright files.

If you mean to say that ambiguous MIT declarations exist in
debian/copyright files written using the machine-readable format, then
please point to an example, as I cannot imagine how that would look.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

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

Reply to: