Bug#883950: [INPUT REQUIRED] Re: Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

On 14900 March 1977, Markus Koschany wrote: > Allow the use of the short-license identifier only in the form: > Files: foo.bar > Copyright: 2017, Smith > License: [GPL-2+] > without the extra standalone paragraph which will mean exactly the > same as > License: GPL-2+ > On

Bug#883950: [INPUT REQUIRED] Re: Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Dear FTP team, 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 === Situation = Debian Policy 12.5 "Copyright inform

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello Markus, On Sat, Dec 16 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: >> I am surprised to hear that this is accepted by ftp-master. Would >> you mind pointing to an example package? > > ufoai-data. Thanks. >> ISTM that the text must explain what the '+' means to be acceptable,

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hi, Am 18.12.2017 um 23:37 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > Hi Markus, > > Markus Koschany wrote: >> Am 16.12.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Sean Whitton: >>> On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > If the Policy editors cannot make a decision with regards to debian/copyright then we should

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hi Markus, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 16.12.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Sean Whitton: >> On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: >>> If the Policy editors cannot make a decision with regards to >>> debian/copyright then we should ask the DPL to seek legal advice and >>> when necessary start a GR

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Am 16.12.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Sean Whitton: > Hello Markus, > > On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > >>> This would mean that we are not explicitly stating in our d/copyright >>> file the difference between GPL-2 and GPL-2+. To learn of the >>> difference, a user would need to view

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hello Markus, On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: >> This would mean that we are not explicitly stating in our d/copyright >> file the difference between GPL-2 and GPL-2+. To learn of the >> difference, a user would need to view the full spec of the copyright >> format. > > IMO this is

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hi, > debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier Apologies for the drive-by suggestion but the closer we change Policy and/or DEP-5 (if at all) to align with SPDX[0], everyone wins :) [0] https://spdx.org/ Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hello Sean, Am 13.12.2017 um 01:31 schrieb Sean Whitton: > Hello Markus, > > On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> I agree that using boiler plate like this: >> >> | License: GPL-2+ >> | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in >> |

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 09:29:27 PM Markus Koschany wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for reporting. I also intended to make such a proposal and I had > briefly mentioned it in bug #883966. [1] > > The reason why the short form is allowed is because of Debian Policy 12.5 > > "Packages distributed

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hello Markus, On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > I agree that using boiler plate like this: > > | License: GPL-2+ > | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in > | /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 > > is still redundant. > > I suggest to change Debian Policy 12.5

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hi, thanks for reporting. I also intended to make such a proposal and I had briefly mentioned it in bug #883966. [1] The reason why the short form is allowed is because of Debian Policy 12.5 "Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello, On Sun, Dec 10 2017, Simon McVittie wrote: > This is not really Policy's decision: it's the ftp team (cc'd) who > decide what they are willing to accept into Debian, and they require > the license grant[1] to be reproduced[2]. As far as I'm aware, it > isn't

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 at 19:57:26 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > First of all, I'd like policy to stop being unclear on this matter, or > state whether the correct form is [a brief license reference] or > [the full license grant]. This is not really Policy's decision: it's the ftp team (cc'd) who

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Package: debian-policy Nowadays it's common to see stand alone license paragraphs like these: |License: GPL-2+ | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in | /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 or |License: GPL-2+ | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or