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

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Ximin Luo wrote:
>> On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote:

>>> In particular, I do not see the benefit from using a syntax for the license
>>> short names,
[...]
>>>                                               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.
>
> This feels very much like delay tactics, and makes me feel very
> frustrated as someone who is trying to contribute to Debian.

I am probably most to blame here. When I some good changes in your
proposal, my reaction was to sent encouragement instead of picking
them out and filing new bugs or looking at the proposal as a whole.

In my opinion, to develop a standardized syntax for short names, it
makes most sense to develop it within Debian's copyright format and
only later, if there's interest, to extract the spec for reuse by
others.

In the short term, SPDX et al would be relevant in that (1) they have
some expertise on the subject, so it could be worth getting their
advice, and (2) their license names currently can be easily mapped to
and from Debian's, without changing names most of the time, and that
is an attribute worth preserving.

I suspect Charles's suggestion was meant to take advantage of (1), but
there are other ways to ask for a body's advice.

I'll send my feedback on your patches in a separate mail.  Thanks
again for your work.

Jonathan