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

Re: DEP-5: query about possible inheritence of License:

Hi Stefano,

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:48:04PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Bonus note on the current DEP-5 draft, quoting from it:

>   *  License

>      # First line: licence name(s) in abbreviated format (see Short
>      names section). If empty, it is given the default value ‘other’
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> So, an empty License (first line) means "other" license, to be detailed
> later on with a License stanza.

> Given that you can always factorize out annoying / bothersome license
> blocks using License stanzas, this limitation does not look like
> particularly severe to me.

> Question on this (because the current draft does not look particularly
> clear on that topic, at least to my own reading): is it true that
> arbitrary keywords can be used in License fields to reference license
> blocks expanded later on or not? In particular, I'm worried about the
> case where there are different "other" licenses in a given package, that
> still need to be reused. Can we in those cases use, e.g., "other1",
> "other2", etc., or possibly even more telling names?

Yes, it's intended that a License: field with an arbitrary keyword can be
used to refer to a later License block.  If this isn't clear, can you
suggest improvements to the text?

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: