Simon McVittie writes:
> Sorry, (c) seems very unlikely: earlier versions of SPDX had the same
> convention as DEP-5, but later versions moved to "GPL-2.0-only" and
> "GPL-2.0-or-later", which I think was the result of a request from the
> FSF to make it clearer whether the "or later" clause of
Please keep the subject line in place when replying to bugs, to give
readers some context (maintainers will often be seeing bug mail as a
single message among many unrelated messages).
On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 at 16:22:46 +0500, Akbarkhon Variskhanov wrote:
> FSF[1] as well as SPDX[2] request using
FSF[1] as well as SPDX[2] request using the suffixes "-only" or
"-or-later" with GNU licenses:
> Therefore, when you use SPDX license indicators, please use these:
> GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later
DEP-5 uses the bare form, i.e. "GPL-3" or "GPL-3+". I added this
difference to the wiki page.
I think its time to reopen the idea of requiring that _debian/copyright_
use SPDX tags when the license texts are an exact match. I think SPDX
has progressed nicely, and has gone through a number of revisions to
address the concerns of Debian and others. This then will greatly
improve the
retitle 696185 [copyright-format] Use short names from SPDX.
severity 696185 wishlist
thanks
Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:20:08AM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio a écrit :
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
I would be in favor of formally recommending to
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 696185 normative discussion
thanks
Hi all,
the specificaiton already states:
If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name,
an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
the specificaiton already states:
If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name,
an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
Dear Policy Maintainers,
I'm seeking clarification on what to use in the License field for
licenses not specifically mentioned within the machine-readable
debian/copyright file spec. There seems to be no direction given in
the text. I think to would be good
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:43:18PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
Dear Policy Maintainers,
I'm seeking clarification on what to use in the License field for
licenses not specifically mentioned within the machine-readable
debian/copyright file
Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net writes:
I am neither a DD nor a policy editor, so my opinion shouldn't be
treated as authoritative in any way :) Still, my feeling is that if
there is no short name for a license defined in the copyright format
specification (the specific version of the
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net writes:
I am neither a DD nor a policy editor, so my opinion shouldn't be
treated as authoritative in any way :) Still, my feeling is that if
there is no short name for a license defined in
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
--- a/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml
+++ b/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml
@@ -663,6 +663,14 @@ Copyright 2009, 2010 Angela Watts/programlisting
license short names for unknown varnameFormat/varname versions.
/para
12 matches
Mail list logo
