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

Bug#649530: [copyright-format] DEP5: clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification

On 21/11/11 23:08, Ximin Luo wrote:
> The solution:
> - Specify that standalone License: stanzas are WHO- and WHAT- neutral.
> - If clarification is required for a particular WHO/WHAT combination, such as
>   the way in which re-licensing works *in addition* to the and/or/+/exception
>   syntax (e.g. "GPL2+", "MPL or GPL"), this should be added to the relevant
>   File: stanza, in the Comment: field, or perhaps we should add a new field for
>   this specific purpose.

I should add,

- explicitly suggest/encourage License: stanzas to refer to the "main"
published license, e.g. GPL2 in the case of GPL2+.

Not to diminish the important of the "+" part, but this information is
generally given on a per-software basis rather than being part of a published
license. (Licenses are generally bigger than "relicensing permissions" text, so
we should prioritise reducing the repetition of those.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: