On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> wrote: > the specificaiton already states: > > If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name, > an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses. > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field > (second paragraph) > > I am not sure if it is necessary to repeat this in other sections.
I'm slightly embarrassed that I missed that text. Thanks for pointing it out. > For SPDX, my personal opinion is that, in absence of a good reason to diverge, > we should use the same short names. Other projects, such as the OSI are also > using them (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical), and I think that > there is a value in using a common vocabulary. > > I would be in favor of formally recommending to follow SPDX in a later > revision > of the specification, but before this we would need a consensus on stopping > calling the MIT license "Expat", so I am quite inclined to wait longer and see > how the SPDX short names establish themselves in other projects. I agree, and this was a secondary concern of this report. Feel free to close or retitle (and maybe change the severity to wishlist) to explicitly deal with the SPDX issue. Thanks, -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer <https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething> Debian Developer <http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb> PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -- 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/CAL6k_Ay+8f6EBGAps=64j8ysroucbsj5aax_vxajtv348xm...@mail.gmail.com
