Re: Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5
Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs@stdin.nl> writes:
> 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.
The syntax requires some short name. I think it's fine to just use
something arbitrary that passes the syntax check, like "custom-license".
That's what I do.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: