(Please keep me CCd, I'm not subscribed) Hi folks, given that DEP5 is now part of debian-policy, I think this is the right place for this dicussion? I use DEP5 here, though it's technically the "Machine-readable debian/copyright file"-specification v1.0, but that's so long to write :-p Looking at my debian/copyright file, in DEP5 format, it's not entirely clear to me how to treat unnamed licenses. Before, I just used as short description instead of an actual "short name": License: Custom binary-only license <license text here> However, lintian complained about spacing not being allowed in a short name. For this license, which really has no name and is just a list of conditions, making up a new name didn't seem right. DEP5 says: If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name, an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses. The use of the word "may" suggests that this is optional and leaving the short name empty is allowed. However, when doing so, lintian complains: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/empty-short-license-in-dep5-copyright.html Which leaves me confused. Is leaving the name empty allowed? I think it should, but in either case it should be clarified in the spec. Gr. Matthijs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature