MJ Ray wrote: > 2) The first sentence clearly states the full name of the licence, the > version number and any software packaged or ITP'd for debian that is > under that licence, with links as appropriate.
While I do agree that debian-legal should not be reviewing licenses except in the context of evaluating whether a given piece of software is Free[1], I don't think that a particular piece of software in question should be mentioned in the summary itself, for several reasons: * It singles out a particular package, which I believe will raise _more_ accusations of vigilante license analysis, not less. * Analyzing the license with a particular package in mind may cause a summary to only be valid for one particular package. *License* summaries should analyze the license itself, in the absence of additional permissions, restrictions, exceptions, or other changes granted in a particular application of that license. When reviewing a particular package for possible inclusion in main, we can always base that review on an existing license summary, and then reevaluate the conclusions of that summary as necessary based on the particulars of the application of that license. This is not to say that licenses should be analyzed in a vacuum. However, license summaries are much less useful if they are only applicable in a single case, or if major parts of the license analysis are omitted because they don't apply in that particular case. Note that I do agree with the first two parts of that summary guideline: the full name and version number of the license should be mentioned at the top. [1] (unless someone specifically requests feedback on a license) - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
