On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 12:54:11PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
I wondered myself why there is a Stand-alone-license stanza [1] in d/copyright files, when it is a well known standard license.
Even for standard licenses you need to repeat several lines if you don't use standalone stanzas.
Are there any policy recommendations about how to handle that?
No. The policy bugs are #904729 and #883950.
Would you say that the example [2] I was pointing to is simply wrong and should be handled otherwise?
It's very rare to not include a license grant and to not spell out explicitly whether you can use later versions of the license beyond the indentifier, even if there may be no explicit requirement for either in the policy.
Also "the full text of the GNU General Public License v3.0 only" is funny. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
