Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-23 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Simon McVittie (2014-09-22 22:05:20) On 22/09/14 18:48, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Markus Koschany (2014-09-22 19:25:20) Version 1: License: GPL-2+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or [...] This program is distributed in the hope that it will be [...]

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-23 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, FTWIW, the copyright format specification https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field explicitly states: Use of a standard short name does not override the Debian Policy requirement to include the full license text in

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-23 Thread Simon McVittie
On 23/09/14 09:01, Joachim Breitner wrote: (Although I find that unfortunate, and makes me much less motivated to find out whether a license that looks like a BSD license is actually one of them on the list, if I still have to include it in the file.) There are enough subtly different variants

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-23 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2014-09-23, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote: 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. you could also just

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-23 Thread Markus Koschany
Hi, On 22.09.2014 21:57, Simon McVittie wrote: On 22/09/14 17:15, Markus Koschany wrote: [...] The point headed Its not enough to have the following two-liner in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html appears to be intended to be a requirement to reproduce the

Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-22 Thread Markus Koschany
Hi all, I am seeking clarification how a proper license paragraph for copyright format 1.0 should be written. A while ago I have started to use this format [1] for common licenses when I saw that fellow maintainers did the same. I was recently informed that this format warrants a reject by the

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-22 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: What do we gain by quoting common licenses in debian/copyright over and over again? We don't quote (i.e. include the *full* text of) common licenses over and over again, that's precisely what /usr/share/common-licenses is for, and

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-22 Thread Markus Koschany
On 22.09.2014 18:36, Santiago Vila wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: What do we gain by quoting common licenses in debian/copyright over and over again? We don't quote (i.e. include the *full* text of) common licenses over and over again, that's

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-22 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Markus Koschany (2014-09-22 19:25:20) On 22.09.2014 18:36, Santiago Vila wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: What do we gain by quoting common licenses in debian/copyright over and over again? We don't quote (i.e. include the *full* text of)

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-22 Thread Simon McVittie
On 22/09/14 17:15, Markus Koschany wrote: A while ago I have started to use this format [1] for common licenses when I saw that fellow maintainers did the same. [1] Examples: License: GPL-2+ On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License version 2 can be found in

Re: Proper notation for common licenses

2014-09-22 Thread Simon McVittie
On 22/09/14 18:48, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Markus Koschany (2014-09-22 19:25:20) Version 1: License: GPL-2+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or [...] This program is distributed in the hope that it will be [...] You should have received a copy of the GNU