Bug#696185: [copyright-format] Please clarify what to use in License field for licenses not specifically mentioned

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
usertags 696185 normative discussion
thanks

Hi all,

the specificaiton already states:

  If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name,
  an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses.

  http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field (second paragraph)

I am not sure if it is necessary to repeat this in other sections.

For SPDX, my personal opinion is that, in absence of a good reason to diverge,
we should use the same short names.  Other projects, such as the OSI are also
using them (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical), and I think that
there is a value in using a common vocabulary.

I would be in favor of formally recommending to follow SPDX in a later revision
of the specification, but before this we would need a consensus on stopping
calling the MIT license "Expat", so I am quite inclined to wait longer and see
how the SPDX short names establish themselves in other projects.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Illkirch-Graffendstaden, France