Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification
Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53:21PM +0000, Ximin Luo a écrit :
> https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0
>
> I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
> extra explanations in the commit messages.
>
> I'm trying to follow the principle that the commit messages should
> already contain enough justification for the changes, but if any of them
> are unclear, please do ask me for further detail.
>
> (Further potential additions, which I've omitted for simplicity, include
> License-Exception: fields, and Location: fields to formalise the concept
> of a "pointer" to a License.)
Dear Ximin,
It was nice to split the patch and document the chunks, but I am still
not convinced that the changes you propose are useful.
In particular, I do not see the benefit from using a syntax for the license
short names, especially that SPDX and other projects do not have one (for
instance GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are seen as separate short names). Also, creating a
syntax is a complex project that I think is beyond the scope of our
machine-readable format. There are corner cases, for instance BSD-3-Clause is
not the upgrade from BSD-2-Clause, or MPL-1.1 can be upgraded to MPL-2.0
despite its short name is not MPL-1.1+, etc. If you would like to work on a
robust syntax, I propose you do it as an independant specification that can
later be proposed for adoption not ony to use, but also to SPDX, OSI,
ADMS.F/OSS, etc.
Another change that you propose and that I disagree with is to "forbid author-
and software-specific information" in stand-alone paragaphs. A lot of
derivatives from the BSD licenses contain such information. Despite we link to
a SPDX page where the BSD license terms are generic, I do not think that the
intent in Debian's machine-readable format to is consider them all the same.
At least in my copyright files I only use "BSD-3-Clause" if the copyright
owners are the regents of the university of California.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Reply to: