Am 11.12.2017 um 04:32 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> writes: > >> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to see that more DFSG >> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package >> maintainers are just allowed to reference them. > >> License: MIT / Expat >> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php >> Example packages: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_MIT_License > > I continue to be concerned that adding any version of this license to > common-licenses will create a trap for the unwary. There are very > frequent wording differences in the exact terms of this license between > different packages, and any version that doesn't exactly match the wording > that we include in common-licenses still legally needs to be reproduced in > the package's copyright file. And this is an error that's very hard to > find with Lintian. Hi, I have been working on ~500 packages during the past five years and I have never seen a package that used a different version of this license. When upstream mentions the MIT license nowadays it is almost 100 % certain that they refer to this license. I know there are different wordings but that should not stop us from including the MIT-Expat license in Debian. We can never totally eliminate human error but in the end the maintainer is ultimately responsible for checking whether this version of the license applies or any other. Of course this is also true for all other licenses and variants. If the wording differs from the above license text then the license text must be reproduced verbatim in debian/copyright. No changes here. Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature