Re: copyright stanzas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:59:49AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:07:07 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> >> >License-Alias: Perl
>> >> Please just use "License" (or make sure to declare an explicit
>> >> revision of the proposal that still includes -Alias".
>> >Was that dropped?
>> Weeell, not dropped, no. But (in my reading) discouraged. Have a look
>> for yourself (section "License Aliases"):
>> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-5b203b59a674d35ad07b52329ae64e174e59442b
>
>Thanks for the pointer.
>
>> What makes me judge it as discouraged is that it was proposed by
>> single person, backed up by noone, but argued against by Noah, one of
>> the founders of the proposal, arguing the need is bogus: "Perl" is
>> not a license.
>
>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:
Files: a
Copyright: me
License: GPL-1+ | Artistic-2+
Files: a
Copyright: me
License: GPL-1+ | Artistic-2+
License: GPL-1+
[actual licensing text of GPL 1 or newer]
License: Artistic-2+
[actual licensing text of Artistic 2 or newer]
...or both licnesing terms treated as one:
Files: a
Copyright: me
License: other-Perl
Files: a
Copyright: me
License: other-Perl
License: other-Perl
[actual licensing text of GPL 1 or newer]
.
[actual licensing text of Artistic 2 or newer]
>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.
>> >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, or (as you mentioned earlier) that
those packages ACCEPTed really did not contain relaxed wording at all
(referred to the library name, not file names)?
>> My point is that if you are anal then do include each licensing
>> variation verbatim, and if you are lazy then don't and hold your
>> breath (and do *not* refer to me if you ever gat complaints about it)
>> :-)
>
>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.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmMLeoACgkQn7DbMsAkQLg5ngCffrUq7Pl0tkdfElgjyq2ug+du
o3QAn1d9hfhGTO+w3Lra4sScoNpzsDel
=w0bv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: