On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:43:18PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: minor > > Dear Policy Maintainers, > > I'm seeking clarification on what to use in the License field for > licenses not specifically mentioned within the machine-readable > debian/copyright file spec. There seems to be no direction given in > the text. I think to would be good for the spec to recommend an > approach. I see two obvious ones: > > 1) If the license is not explicitly listed in the spec, recommend > using the SPDX identifier as the license short name. > > 2) If the license is not explicitly listed in the spec, recommend > using the full name as found in the license's text. > > I personally lean towards option 1 for all the reasons that the spec > uses standardized short names for licenses already. Either way, the > recommendation would be a *should* not a *must*
Hi, I am neither a DD nor a policy editor, so my opinion shouldn't be treated as authoritative in any way :) Still, my feeling is that if there is no short name for a license defined in the copyright format specification (the specific version of the specification that the package's copyright file references, e.g. 1.0 for the present), then the packager is free to pick any short name desired. IMHO if there is indeed an SPDX identifier, it might be preferable to use that, but it is not mandatory in any way. My feeling stems mainly from the text in the "License" field description in the "Fields" section of the copyright format specification - http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field and also somewhat from existing practice - some packages I've seen fly by -mentors, some of my own packages, etc. The main point is, the fact that the copyright format specification's version is explicitly noted in the copyright file means that there is no danger of any kind of conflict with future or past versions, there is no danger of trouble, even if the license is later included in a later version of the specification. Even if it should be included under a different name in the future, this does not change the fact that the name you picked is absolutely valid for the version you referenced; all it means is that in the future it may be easier to change the license's name in a later upload, when you're also changing the version of the specification on the first line in the copyright file. > Quote below from RFS Bug #693330 is what led to this bug report. [snip] > >>> 2) The debian/copyright file has a few small issues with the spec. > >>> > >>> - SIL Open Font License (OFL), Version 1.1. should just use the short > >>> name OFL-1.1 in the License field. > >>> > >>> - As it isn't among the common-licenses, you need to include the full > >>> text of the OFL-1.1. [snip] In this particular case, IMHO OFL-1.1 should be just fine. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org p.penc...@storpool.com PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 This sentence claims to be an Epimenides paradox, but it is lying.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
