Bug#696185: [copyright-format] Please clarify what to use in License field for licenses not specifically mentioned
Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes:
> I am neither a DD nor a policy editor, so my opinion shouldn't be
> treated as authoritative in any way :) Still, my feeling is that if
> there is no short name for a license defined in the copyright format
> specification (the specific version of the specification that the
> package's copyright file references, e.g. 1.0 for the present), then the
> packager is free to pick any short name desired. IMHO if there is
> indeed an SPDX identifier, it might be preferable to use that, but it is
> not mandatory in any way.
Right, this was the intent.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: