On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:44:44 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> > Hm, I actually prefer the "stand-alone" licenses at the end because
> > they avoid duplication of the license boilerplate (for packages with
> > several Files: stanzas that all have the same license but different
> > copyright holders) and make reading of the Files: paragraphs easier.
> Right. Avoiding bloat is good.
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: upstream
> License-Alias: Perl
> ...
> License: Perl
> Foo-Bar is distributed by the same terms as Perl.
> .
> Perl is distributed under ... (details)
> .
> On Debian ... (pointers to full texts)
>
> Does that seem OK?
To be honest I still prefer the the stand-alone versions
(last (not yet uploaded) example:
libconfig-model-openssh-perl/debian/copyright
)
> > Disclaimer: I have not followed the development of the proposed new
> > format closely.
> I checked it briefly today and it seems its authors wait for Lenny to
> be set free before initiating a DEP. IOW, the proposal won't settle
> soon.
That's what I fear too, thanks for checking.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: STS: I denk, wenn i denk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature