On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:32:42 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >That's why it's "License-Alias" and not "License" :)
> >(And the actual licenses are mentioned in the next line.)
> I still fail to see that keyword adding anything.
> Without that keyword, you can still express both dual-licensing:
Sure, it's just closer to "same as Perl".
Just a question of taste
> >I have no strong opinion on that question but if upstream just says
> >"under the same terms as Perl" translating this to "License-Alias:
> >Perl" (and then expanding what it actually means) doesn't seem
> >unlogical to me.
> Agreed. The question is if the format needs to support a keyword to make
> it possible to delay expansion to the actual licensing, instead of
> earlier at each Files: entry.
Agreed.
> >> >I haven't seen any REJECTs caused by the very short debian/copyright
> >> >files we've been using since August (which don't necessarily contain
> >> >the exact wording but the Artistic/GPL default text in the
> >> >stand-alone stanzas).
> >> >(Recent example: libsys-gamin-perl)
> >> Not being caught is not same as not in violation. :-)
> >Sure, but I believe that's not the reason for the ACCEPTs :)
> I don't follow you here. Do you mean that ACCEPT indicates
> acknowledgement of relaxed wording,
Yes.
> >I'm all for being accurate but I don't think it really helps in the
> >case of well known standard licenses and clear intentions of the
> >author(s) to copy each and every wording variation.
> Then work towards removing the word "verbatim" in Debian Policy §2.3.
Hm, good point.
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/
`- BOFH excuse #123: user to computer ratio too high.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature