Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : > On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but > > notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the > > "Short name" section, but _is_ listed in the "Problematic Licenses" > > section. > > > > So your proposal to "add link to DEP5" is, I believe, tied to removing > > it from "Problematic Licenses", and this we should discuss. > > No, I don't suggest that at all. I suggest keeping it where it is and > adding a link to it. I don't care what happens to it, so nothing else > will happen unless and until someone proposes concrete changes.
I suggest to remove the whole section about problematic licenses: - If we indicate a reference form for the MIT license, then it has its place in the short name table. - Description of the Copyright field already specifies that it is where public domain should be mentionned. - The part about PHP explains that the reason why it is not in the list of short names; but I do not thing why we should make a justification for PHP in particular. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101221172351.gb15...@merveille.plessy.net