Hi, Thanks for your work.
"Serafeim Zanikolas" <s...@debian.org> writes: > right, I guess that's why the wikipedia diagram distinguishes between MPL-2 > and > MPL-2-no-copyleft-exception. I think that we don't have to worry about that > because spdx.org/licenses defines a distinct license identifier for the > -no-copyleft-exception variant, and dep5 requires the use of spdx identifiers. > (which is to say that we can assume that MPL-2 is in fact MPL-2 without the > copyleft exception and therefore GPL compatible) Would you please provide a citation for this update, because it looks to me like DEP 5 only prohibits the redefinition of "a standard short name", as well as defining the "trailing dot-zeroes" case. "Standard short name" presumably means that it is wrong to declare "License: GPL-3+", but then use some-other license text; ie, well-known licenses names cannot be redefined. 2.0.0 is equal to 2.0 and 2 for SPDX compat. Other than that, I cannot see where DEP 5 necessitates the use of SPDX identifiers. In some cases, we actually prohibit SPDX idenfiers in Debian: For example, "Licence: MIT" vs "License: Expat". To the best of my knowledge proponents of DEP5 retain the right to use Debian-specific "standard short name[s]" rather than SPDX ones, and we don't have any kind of official or unofficial SPDX-specific position other than the "trailing dot-zeroes" case. Did I miss something? Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature