Bug#768292: debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> [X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmaster@debian.org because I know the Policy maintainers
> don't actually control what is or isn't acceptable in the archive in this
> respect.]
>
> Some packages currently have stanzas like this in their copyright files:
>
> License: MPL-2.0
> The complete text of the Mozilla Public License 2.0 can be found in
> the `MPL-2.0' file in the same directory as this file.
>
> It is not clear to me whether Debian Policy allows this. I would like it
> to be specifically allowed, unless there is some good reason not to; if
> ftp-master tools like whatever tool generates
> <https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html> need to be able to extract these
> files, it would be OK to prescribe some fixed naming convention, such as
> /usr/share/doc/${package}/${name}.license or (if they are also required
> to have a prescribed location in the source package)
> debian/${name}.license.
>
> One package that would benefit from this is adwaita-icon-theme. It currently
> has an 87K copyright file[1], mechanically generated from a Perl script[2]
> and four verbatim Creative Commons licenses[3] which are re-indented for
> copyright-format by the script. If I'd known it was OK to do so, I would
> much rather have shipped those four licenses as-is and just made the
> copyright file refer to them.
>
> If the licenses are allowed to be compressed (see also [4]) then
> so much the better.
>
> Regards,
> S
>
> [1]
> http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/adwaita-icon-theme/debian/copyright?revision=43390&view=markup
> [2]
> http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/adwaita-icon-theme/debian/copyright.pl?revision=43390&view=markup
> [3]
> http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/adwaita-icon-theme/debian/
> [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=491055
>
Hi Simon,
just maybe another datapoint, as recently there was a similar dicussion on
d-devel, the thread started as
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/09/msg00704.html (difference: This
was a question brought up by Markus if it is sufficient to referencfe to the
common licenses)
Though I think this discussion did not end with some concrete conclusion...
--
tobi
Reply to: