Package: dh-make Version: 0.60 Severity: minor Dear Maintainer,
while building up a registry of license sniplets suitable for
inclusion in a machine readable debian/copyright file, I came across
the collection in /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/ and some
questions arose. Could you please check?
Keep in mind I'm neither a copyright lawyer nor I appear as one in
debian-legal or anywhere else.
* artistic
The keyword used is "Artistic". Since the text is, as far as I can
see, actually "Artistic-1.0", I'd suggest to use that one.
* bsd
I'd suggest to use the generalized form where "REGENTS" has been
replaced by "COPYRIGHT HOLDERS" (in the second place "HOLDER"
according to the SPDX registry). See debian-legal[0] why, but feel
free to disagree.
* x11
The keyword used "X11" is unknown to both the Debian policy and the
SPDX registry. That's not illegal but if there's a better keyword,
please use that.
Regards,
Christoph
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/03/msg00003.html
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.0.18 (SMP w/23 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages dh-make depends on:
ii debhelper 9.20120115
ii dpkg-dev 1.16.1.2
ii make 3.81-8.1
ii perl 5.14.2-7
dh-make recommends no packages.
Versions of packages dh-make suggests:
ii build-essential 11.5
-- no debconf information
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
