On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Andrea Veri wrote: > Hi, > > while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL) > within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team > having the following rationale: > > "the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses, > thus the full text has to be added into debian/copyright." > > Since the MPL is not a short license [1], we decided to handle the > current situation by linking the license to a static file included in > the /usr/share/doc/xul-ext-packagename directory this way: > > "License: MPL-1.1 > The complete text of the Mozilla Public License can be found in > the `MPL' file in the same directory as this file." > > We, then, received another reject. So, what's the working solution for > these kind of cases? is it including the full text of the license a > bit of a non-sense when we can directly link back to a static file? > what's the rationale behind including the full license? why the > relevant bug report [2] has been started back in 2008 but as of today, > has still no decision?
Would it be unreasonable if someone were to start an "uncommon-licenses" package? Then any package depending on that could use a reference to the license instead of including the full text in debian/copyright. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=moj44ovpw4xhjmrcnl+pkyek30-ckfepuonu+k0z4t...@mail.gmail.com
