[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#633994: debian-policy: confusion over what the license information in the copyright file actually means



On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 07:50:31PM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:

> In particular in DEP-5 format the contention is that the sort license
> stanza specifies the upstream license and the long form Debian license.

> > In any case there is an inconsistency between the stated version
> > >>>> 1.1+ and the license text which mentions 1.2.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I don't think there is a mismatch here.  This is something
> >>> that, I think, is the case with many other Debian packages, including
> >>> some maintained by the Debian Perl Group :)  The author states "1.1 or
> >>> later" and the packager *chooses* to point the reader to a later version
> >>> - the one in the common-licenses package, 1.2.  You may see an example
> >>> of this in e.g. the libmailtools-perl or libtemplate-perl packages,
> >>> among others.

> So the question is should the requirements (either in policy or DEP-5) be
> tightened up or left intentionally vague?

So to be clear, the claim here is that it's ok to list "License: LGPL-2+"
(or something of the sort), but have the license stanza contain the text of
LGPL-3?  Or if that's not what you mean, could you please provide a concrete
example of the usage at issue?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: