Bug#487201:
Le Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 02:19:27PM +0100, Ximin Luo a écrit :
>
> I read DEP-5 and have been working on getting my debian/copyright files to
> conform to that standard. However, one major annoyance is the inclusion of
> verbatim licenses, in particular MPL-1.1.
>
> The "correct" way (according to a strict interpretation of debian policy and
> DEP-5) to do this is to include MPL-1.1 verbatim within a License: paragraph,
> which means you need to indent every single line by one space, and fill in
> the blank lines with a "." character.
Dear Ximin,
given that the License fields are specified following the same syntax as Debian
Policy's Description fields (§5.6.13), where successive lines may be
word-wrapped, I recommend to either insert escaped empty lines under titles or
subtitles that are directly followed by text, or to make the whole included
license to be displayed verbatim by indenting its text by two spaces.
---------------- example 1 ---------------------------
Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the
origin or ownership of the Covered Code.
.
3.4. Intellectual Property Matters
.
(a) Third Party Claims.
.
If Contributor has knowledge that a license under a third party's
intellectual property rights is required to exercise the rights
granted by such Contributor under Sections 2.1 or 2.2,
Contributor must include a text file with the Source Code
distribution titled "LEGAL" which describes the claim and the
party making the claim in sufficient detail that a recipient will
---------------- example 1 ---------------------------
---------------- example 2 ---------------------------
Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the
origin or ownership of the Covered Code.
.
3.4. Intellectual Property Matters
(a) Third Party Claims.
If Contributor has knowledge that a license under a third party's
intellectual property rights is required to exercise the rights
granted by such Contributor under Sections 2.1 or 2.2,
Contributor must include a text file with the Source Code
distribution titled "LEGAL" which describes the claim and the
party making the claim in sufficient detail that a recipient will
---------------- example 2 ---------------------------
I share your feelings about wasted time each time I prepare a package
containing files distributed under the Artistic license version 2. Sometimes,
5 minutes matter.
About http://bugs.debian.org/487201#64, I do not agree with Ian's arguments,
and think that it would keep everything clearer to consider only license length
and frequency for its addition to /usr/share/common-licenses. Taking the
addition as an endorsement would open the Pandora's box, and I would not be
surprised to read similar reasonnings for files that are outside
/usr/share/common-licenses.
Have a nice Sunday,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: