On 01-Aug-2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
> codesearch.debian.net suggests that this field is now used in quite
> a few packages. It seems reasonable to add a description of its use
> to the copyright format.
Thank you for bringing that to this discussion.
> I have some questions about Ben's patch:
>
> 1) the patch needs to be rebased against current policy
I'll take care of that in a few days.
> 2) Is there a missing "License-Grant:" here:
>
> > Files: debian/patches/fancy-feature
> > Copyright: 2010 Daniela Debianizer
> > + This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > + the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
> > + (at your option) any later version.
> > License: GPL-3+
Yes, I think that the detail text there belongs in a “License-Grant”
field.
Files: debian/patches/fancy-feature
Copyright: 2010 Daniela Debianizer
License: GPL-3+
License-Grant:
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of
the License, or (at your option) any later version.
provided that the text is actually the literal grant of license from
the copyright holder.
--
\ “If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting |
`\ them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good |
_o__) reason.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature