On 01-Aug-2017, Sean Whitton wrote: > codesearch.debian.net suggests that this field is now used in quite > a few packages. It seems reasonable to add a description of its use > to the copyright format.
Thank you for bringing that to this discussion. > I have some questions about Ben's patch: > > 1) the patch needs to be rebased against current policy I'll take care of that in a few days. > 2) Is there a missing "License-Grant:" here: > > > Files: debian/patches/fancy-feature > > Copyright: 2010 Daniela Debianizer > > + This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify > > + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > > + the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or > > + (at your option) any later version. > > License: GPL-3+ Yes, I think that the detail text there belongs in a “License-Grant” field. Files: debian/patches/fancy-feature Copyright: 2010 Daniela Debianizer License: GPL-3+ License-Grant: This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. provided that the text is actually the literal grant of license from the copyright holder. -- \ “If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting | `\ them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good | _o__) reason.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature