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