Hi. Il 22/05/2013 14:46, Emmanuel Bourg ha scritto: >> Please let me know if you're aware of other resources which suggest to >> behave differently. > > I may have misinterpreted the specification. It states: > > "This field should either include the full text of the license(s) or > include a pointer to the license file under /usr/share/common-licenses." > > The only exception I'm aware of where a pointer is not enough if for BSD > licensed packages. The license has to appear verbatim because it's > specific to every package. That's a common case reported by lintian. Well, each license that doesn't have a verbatim copy in common-licenses actually requires you to state in wholly in debian/copyright. Anyway, that's not the issue here: simply, the paragraph that you removed is not the content of the license, it's just the indication that said license is in effect (together with the pointer to common-licenses). I personally prefer to retain it in debian/copyright; and the "Examples" section apparently back my preference. On the other hand, I don't think your position is wrong: it's probably more a matter of tastes. > I also observed this scheme in several packages, and debian-maven-helper > generates packages without the full license text either. > > If this is wrong I'll adapt my update routine for the next uploads. Do as you wish, I personally have no compelling reasons for suggesting one or the other behavior. I was just curious to understand whether you had more precise references, but it seems the situation is mostly symmetrical. :-) Gio. -- Giovanni Mascellani <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it> Pisa, Italy Web: http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~mascellani Jabber: g.mascellani@jabber.org / giovanni@elabor.homelinux.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature