Quoting [email protected] (2026-05-17 08:54:08) > The resue-tool itself "ignores" license files when validating the > SPDX-compliance of a project. > As some of you pointed out it is tricky to add a license to a license > file. So why not exclude license files from lintian (and other similiar > tools) and modify the Debian policy accordingly. > Adding a license to a license feels like a workaround to me. > > On the other hand, "reuse-tool" does not recognize "d/copyright" as a > license file, so it warns if there is no license for that file. > Therefore, "spdx2debian" currently generates a license file for it using > "CC0-1.0" as license and "None" as copyright holder. It is also a > workaround.
Your question applies equally well to your own tool, it seems: Why not exclude debian/copyright from "reuse-tool" coverage, instead of bogusly and confusingly inventing a licensing that noone granted? My guess is that your workaround was done to make the computed result appear perfect. That seems to me to be the exact same reason for the question raised in this thread. I maintain the tool "licensecheck" and chose to not invent licensing or copyright, but instead add FIXMEs to the produces output. Other tools has then emerged which takes the licensecheck output and "improves" it by stripping those FIXMEs :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
