user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org usertags 781654 + informative proposal thanks
> in the short name license tables, shipped as part of the machine readable > copyright format specification and available online at > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name > > the long name of the Common Public License (CPL) is incorrect. > > It currently reads "IBM Common Public License", but it should simply be > "Common > Public License", without leading "IBM". This is confirmed by both > http://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0 (which the table entry points to) and > http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php Hi Stefano, this is correct. Since the long names from the license table are not formally used in the specification, I think that the issue is non-normative and can be corrected without changing the revision number in the Format string of the Copyright files. I am wondering if it would be better to mark the corrected version of the specification as 1.0.1 in the text, but keep distributing the files as 1.0, or to just correct the version 1.0 without incrementing any revision number anywyere. What do other people think about this ? > (Many thanks to Mike Milinkovich for spotting this.) Thanks indeed, and have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150401105227.ga18...@falafel.plessy.net
