Re: Incorrect missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright?
Hi Nicolas,
Nicholas Guriev wrote:
> I discovered that Linitan does not recognize license expressions in
> stand-alone license paragraphs in a d/copyright file. They seem not to
> be prohibited by DEP-5 as far as I can tell. Is it really so or do I
> read the spec wrong?
I guess the latter. Under
https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep5/#license-field in the
"Remaining lines" paragraph, there is written "a stand-alone License
paragraph matching each license short name listed on the first line".
I read that that you can use expressions when declaring the license
for a set of files, but not in the stand-alone license paragraphs.
> https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep5/#stand-alone-license-paragraph
The Example 1 in this section shows you how the stand-alone license
paragraphs should be written in your case.
> Is this list an appropriate place?
An appropriate place, but maybe not the most appropriate place. :-)
Since DEP5 is now part of the Debian Policy, the debian-policy list
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/) might be a better place for
this, especially if you think that the current text of the format can
be improved for less ambiguity. :-)
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Reply to: