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

DEP-5: comment field vs. license field

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:18:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > As example of free-form comments that do not need a field, there is
> > extracts of the correspondance with the authors when some points need to
> > be confirmed,

> This is a good point.

> > and the traditional “On Debian systems, the complete text of the …
> > License can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses…”, which can be
> > inferred by the parsers themselves.

> Oh, hm.  I was going to argue that this should be part of the license
> text, but that's a very good point.  It's actually redundant information
> for a Debian-aware parser.

For a Debian-aware parser, isn't *all* the text in the license field
redundant when referring to a license found in common-licenses?
Nevertheless, there's certain text that Debian Policy and the licenses
themselves require us to propagate in debian/copyright.  I don't see why we
would want to put this information in a comment instead of in the License:

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

Reply to: