Le Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:37:50PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit :
>
> ## debian/copyright
>
> License name "MIT" is incorrect even though upstream may refer to this
> license as such. "MIT" is considered ambiguous by the Free Software
> Foundation. copyright-format-1.0 specification recommends to label
> newer MIT license as "Expat" however this is an older variant so it
> would be better called "MIT-old-style" or similar. See
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
Hi all,
to be comprehensive, there are also the Software Package Data Exchange
project and the Open Source Initiative which both agree on a reference
MIT license:
http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
http://spdx.org/licenses/MIT
So if it matches the above, it may be fair to call it "MIT" if Upstream calls
it "MIT".
In the case of gti, the license does not match the text of the MIT or Expat
license, therefore it is better to use an arbitrary short name. Something like
"gti", or "MIT-like" (as Upstream calls it), etc. would be enough.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130501084219.gc19...@falafel.plessy.net
