Hello everybody, > On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 at 09:49:39 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > > Is it really that valuable for us to have a delta here compared to what > > upstream projects would use?
If I remember well, one of the reason for the divergence was that we really wanted a system describing license exceptions, so that we do not need to quote near-identical versions of the GPL two or three times in the same copyright files. Fortunately, SPDX has adopted such a system in the meantime. With the current version of the machine-readable debian/copyright file, we can already use SPDX identifiers as long as they do not clash with the Debian ones, and I am not aware of such a case. But I see the value of deprecating the Debian ones and align on SPDX. For this to happen I think that we need 1) proof of consensus and 2) host the update somewhere. Using the debian-policy pakcage like for version 1.0 would acheive both. Using the DEP process might help (or not) for 1). Le Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 12:07:16PM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit : > > That, and MIT (SPDX) vs Expat (DEP-5) for one particularly popular member > of the MIT/X11 license family, as used in Expat and many other projects. About saying MIT instead of Expat, I fully [1] agree [2]. 1: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/08/msg00109.html 2: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/12/msg00034.html Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from home https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy - You do not have my permission to use this email to train an AI -
