Hi Jakub, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-05-21 22:32:23) > * Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>, 2015-05-21, 21:30: >>The following triggers missing-license-text-in-dep5-copyright and >>missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright: >> >>>Files: debian/* >>>Copyright: 2014, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> >>>License: GPL-3+ >>>License-Grant: >>> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify >>> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by >>> the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or >>> (at your option) any later version. >>> . >>> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but >>> WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >>> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU >>> General Public License for more details. >>[…] >>>License: GPL-3+ >>>License-Reference: /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 >> >>I believe that to be a false positive: File format 1.0 requires a >>License paragraph to have a License field (which is always satisfied), >>but does not mandate said License field to be multi-line. > > The specification says: “If there are no remaining lines [in the > License field], then all of the short names or short names followed by > license exceptions making up the first line must be described in > stand-alone License paragraphs.” > > I don't believe this requirement is satisfied in your copyright file. Specification (or at least the part you quote) does not mandate that description be contained within the License _field_ of the License paragraph. Or is your point that my License-Reference is not descriptive enough? > Also, it says: “This field should include all text needed in order to > fulfill both Debian Policy's requirement for including a copy of the > software's distribution license (12.5)”, so I don't think you can move > the relevant information to the License-Grant or License-Reference > fields. I see two possible interpretations of above: a) It is implied to mean "This field, when not a single line,[…]" and therefore does not apply to my case. This interpretation makes sense to me both for what it dictates and its context in a paragraph generally covering that "flavor" of the field. b) The sentence applies both to multi-line and single-line license fields and therefore contradicts the paragraph above which permits single-line license field to reference a license paragraph instead of contain all needed info itself. Perhaps you consider a third option: c) It is implied to mean "This field, when used in stand-alone License paragraph, […]". I can see how such interpretation might suite your view on my pattern being wrong, but I fail to see what indications in Policy itself points towards such interpretation. - Jonas -- * 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