Re: License entry in egg info files
"W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> writes:
> Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect:
>
> /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
> /usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
[…]
> /usr/share/pyshared/spambayes-1.0.4.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
> /usr/share/pyshared/tailor-0.9.35.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
>
> I'm too lazy right now to file bugs, but shouldn't we fix this?
Currently, Debian policy is (AFAICT) silent on the topic of
‘foo-1.2.3.egg-info’ files. The ‘License’ field does not IMO have any
effect on copyright or licenses; only an explicit grant of license could
do that, and I don't think that field value would count.
So currently I don't think they are bugs of any severity above ‘minor’.
There's currently no effective Python policy (the latest one at
<URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/> is way
out of date with regard to current recommended practice).
However, if there *were* to be such a policy, I would expect it to
require that the distutils ‘License’ field at least be consistent with
‘debian/copyright’. So, in principle, I think these *should* be bugs.
Presumably all these are created by upstream ‘setup.py’ settings, so it
would ultimately be for upstream to fix in each case.
--
\ “It's up to the masses to distribute [music] however they want |
`\ … The laws don't matter at that point. People sharing music in |
_o__) their bedrooms is the new radio.” —Neil Young, 2008-05-06 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: