Bug#696185: [copyright-format] Please clarify what to use in License field for licenses not specifically mentioned
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
Dear Policy Maintainers,
I'm seeking clarification on what to use in the License field for
licenses not specifically mentioned within the machine-readable
debian/copyright file spec. There seems to be no direction given in
the text. I think to would be good for the spec to recommend an
approach. I see two obvious ones:
1) If the license is not explicitly listed in the spec, recommend
using the SPDX identifier as the license short name.
2) If the license is not explicitly listed in the spec, recommend
using the full name as found in the license's text.
I personally lean towards option 1 for all the reasons that the spec
uses standardized short names for licenses already. Either way, the
recommendation would be a *should* not a *must*
Quote below from RFS Bug #693330 is what led to this bug report.
Thanks!
-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
Ubuntu Developer <https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething>
Debian Developer <http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb>
PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
<asb@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andrew, thanks for your review.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio <asb@debian.org> wrote:
>>> 2) The debian/copyright file has a few small issues with the spec.
>>>
>>> - SIL Open Font License (OFL), Version 1.1. should just use the short
>>> name OFL-1.1 in the License field.
>>>
>>> - As it isn't among the common-licenses, you need to include the full
>>> text of the OFL-1.1.
>>
>> Added full license text (about 100 lines...). I don't think I can use
>> the short name as it is not listed in the specification:
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name.
>
> My personal understanding is that when not listed in the
> specification, the SPDX identifier should be used. Though that doesn't
> seem clear in the text at all. May I'll bring this up on
> debian-policy. As another data point, the only machine-readable
> debian/copyright parser I know warns on your language but not OFL-1.1
>
> $ cme check dpkg-copyright
> Configuration item 'Files:"fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot" License short_name'
> has a wrong value:
> value 'SIL Open Font License (OFL), Version 1.1.' does not match grammar:
>
> I certainly won't block uploading on this.
Reply to: