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

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:16:08PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > For other points, for instance that stand-alone license sections can also
> > accept short names accompanied by their license exception, a clarification
> > would not hurt; but I do not consider this a blocking problem.
> 
> I believe this should be a blocker --- it is an instance of the
> document and actual practice clearly contradicting one another.  I
> wouldn't mind if it is resolved by forbidding stand-alone license
> sections for license exceptions, though, if that's the only way to get
> something released.  (Of course I would prefer the opposite
> resolution.)

I think that the document overlooks rather than forbids the case of standalone
paragraphs for licence with exceptions.  In that sense I do not see a
contradiction, and indeed, I found multiple copyright files in the Lintian lab
that use such standalone paragraphs.

In parallel, I note that parsers do not refuse standalone paragraph even when
they refer to a license listed only once in a Files field.

For instance:

  Files: *
  Copyright: upstream
  License: foo
  
  Files: */contrib
  Copyright: somebody else
  License: bar
  
  License: foo
   The text for foo.
  
  License: bar
   The text for bar.

Would you or Ximin like to propose a patch, focused on clarifying that
stand-alone license paragraphs are allowed even for mono-licensed works and for
licenses with exception ?

Have a nice week-end,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan