Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.2.0 Severity: wishlist
As far as I know the license data in debian/copyright states what license Debian is distributing the package under. Clearly all agree that this license must be consistent with the upstream license but I am reviewing a package where the maintainer believes it is common practice to convey both the upstream license and the Debian license in a way I find obscure. In particular in DEP-5 format the contention is that the sort license stanza specifies the upstream license and the long form Debian license. > In any case there is an inconsistency between the stated version > >>>> 1.1+ and the license text which mentions 1.2. >>> >>> Actually, I don't think there is a mismatch here. This is something >>> that, I think, is the case with many other Debian packages, including >>> some maintained by the Debian Perl Group :) The author states "1.1 or >>> later" and the packager *chooses* to point the reader to a later version >>> - the one in the common-licenses package, 1.2. You may see an example >>> of this in e.g. the libmailtools-perl or libtemplate-perl packages, >>> among others. So the question is should the requirements (either in policy or DEP-5) be tightened up or left intentionally vague? -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.10.1 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110715185031.17706.58601.reportbug@taylor.periapt
