On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 07:50:31PM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote: > 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? So to be clear, the claim here is that it's ok to list "License: LGPL-2+" (or something of the sort), but have the license stanza contain the text of LGPL-3? Or if that's not what you mean, could you please provide a concrete example of the usage at issue? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
