Hello Sean, Am 13.12.2017 um 01:31 schrieb Sean Whitton: > Hello Markus, > > On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> I agree that using boiler plate like this: >> >> | License: GPL-2+ >> | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in >> | /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 >> >> is still redundant. >> >> I suggest to change Debian Policy 12.5 and copyright format 1.0 in such >> a way that the following syntax is allowed: >> >> License: [GPL-2+] > > This would mean that we are not explicitly stating in our d/copyright > file the difference between GPL-2 and GPL-2+. To learn of the > difference, a user would need to view the full spec of the copyright > format. IMO this is already the case. What we do right now and what is accepted by the ftp-master is, that we write for GPL-2 and GPL-2+ in one package: License: GPL-2 On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 License: GPL-2+ On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 We also write at the beginning of debian/copyright: Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ This makes it clear what format applies to debian/copyright and where the user can retrieve more information about it. > This seems like a regression, as the current format is easily > easy to understand without reference to the spec. It also means that > the package's copyright information is self-contained and not dependent > on some external document. I don't think it is a burden to take a look at the copyright format 1.0 specification. Actually I would expect from people who take copyright seriously that they try to understand how debian/copyright is constructed. d/copyright is already dependent on the specification in use. I can understand your argument for the old format but a machine-readable format should be as simple as possible. If there are questions, just look up the specification. This is a feature we should preserve (and > might be legally required to preserve). I would ask you and everyone else who believes this is legally required to back this statement with real legal advice. I have never met anyone in Debian who claims to be an expert in open source licensing but everyone seems to be of the opinion that we would do something illegal, when... If the Policy editors cannot make a decision with regards to debian/copyright then we should ask the DPL to seek legal advice and when necessary start a GR for reasons of legitimacy. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature