hi Nicolas, thanks for the feedback!
On Tue Jul 2, 2024 at 10:24 PM CEST, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > 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 [..] no, you're right -- and I've only now read https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat which makes abundantly clear that we care little about spdx. that brings us back to the question of what to do with MPL-2. my inclination is to KISS and assume that all "License: MPL-2" is without the copyleft restriction, and only assume otherwise if we ever encounter MPL-2-no-copyleft-exception (which does not seem to be used anywhere today, according to codesearch.debian.net) if that sounds reasonable to you, I'll update accordingly the relevant FAQ entry in the tech note.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
