Bug#696185: [copyright-format] Please clarify what to use in License field for licenses not specifically mentioned
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> 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.
I'm slightly embarrassed that I missed that text. Thanks for pointing it out.
> 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.
I agree, and this was a secondary concern of this report. Feel free to
close or retitle (and maybe change the severity to wishlist) to
explicitly deal with the SPDX issue.
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
Reply to: