Hello Steve, On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Steve Langasek wrote: > I strongly disagree with this. I think this adds more syntax without > adding any more information. > > The License: field is already very consistently used to contain > whatever details of the license are required to be shipped with the > package - either a full text of a license, or a license grant with a > pointer to /usr/share/common-licenses. If people feel that it's > insufficiently obvious that this is the correct usage of the field, by > all means, let's document that better; but let's not make a > backwards-incompatible change to the syntax that doesn't benefit users > of the file. This is emphatically /not/ backwards-incompatible. It's an optional field and we are not touching the description of the License: field. For those who are worried about this issue, both License: and License-Grant: can be used; for those who are not, such as yourself, you can just keep using License: as you have been doing. There is no consensus on either of these options so we're making both possible. Does this weaken your disagreement? -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature