[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal



user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
usertags 883950 = normative discussion
thanks

Hello,

On Thu, Dec 28 2017, Markus Koschany wrote:

> the Policy editors request your attention and a decision regarding
> Debian bug #883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses
> with only the identifier.
>
> Summary of the proposal [...]

Thank you Markus for a great summary.

We now know that we can go ahead with the main proposal to introduce the
"[GPL-3+]" notation into our machine-readable copyright format.

However, we still need to decide how we are going to hint to the local
admin that "GPL-3+" means "GPL version 3 or any later version at your
option".  (The purpose is to keep the machine-readable copyright format
basically readable without reference to the copy of the spec on the
Debian web mirrors.  So it's not the square brackets that we need to
hint about.  It's the '+'.)

I suggested shipping the copyright format in base-files and referring to
it using the Format: header.  Joerg thinks that a shorter/smaller hint
would be adequate and better than "duplicating" the copyright format --
though do note that we might be able to find a way to ship it that
avoids any inconvenient duplication.

I still think my proposal is best because it is forward-compatible with
the introduction of other abbreviations into the copyright format.  Once
we know that the local admin has access to the full spec, we need worry
much less about any new abbreviation which saves developer time but
reduces the readability of copyright files.

What are our alternatives here?  What might a "README", as Joerg puts
it, look like?  All I can think of is a standard snippet to include in
the Comment: field in the first paragraph of the copyright file, saying
that foo-N+ means foo version N or any later version of the license at
your option.

Let's not rush choosing how we're going to provide this hint to the
local admin.  We want to be sure we get this decision right because it
will be difficult to change it once the new abbreviation appears in
copyright files across the archive.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: