On 20.09.2014 16:02, Tobias Frost wrote: > Addendum: > > On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 15:45 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: >>> Absolutely agreed. But can you point me to examples where the short >>> reference to /usr/share/common-licenses was deemed not appropriate by >>> the FTP team? > > > From > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html > (the FTP master provides that link in their REJECT-FAQ, > https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html, under "Copyright") > Its from 2006, but still valid) > >> - Its not enough to have the following two-liner: >> | On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License >> | can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' file. >> >> There are license headers, like the one used for GPL in the example below, you >> should use those. > I think that contradicts the information from Debian's Policy and the copyright format 1.0 manual and needs further clarification from the FTP team. There are many packages that use copyright format 1.0 and the same License paragraphs in the same way as I do and I am not aware that anybody rejected packages because of that. The example above is most like wrong because it refers to a symlink license and not to a specific version. If this is still the position of the FTP team and they simply "overlooked" hundred of packages, I stand corrected. But I really hope that this is no longer true for copyright format 1.0 because it would be just another mindless copy&paste exercise without a real benefit. Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature