Hi, Markus Koschany wrote:
> FYI: Here is what one of the ftp-masters, Jörg Jaspert, wrote in > response to my proposal to reduce boilerplate in debian/copyright. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883950#80 > > I believe it shows the generally tendency that they are in favor of the > proposal. Agreed: my understanding is that ftp-masters are fine with the reference to common-licenses being implicit. Simon McVittie wrote: > ( ) the full text of the license, *and* the license grant > (unless the license *is* the license grant, like BSD-style licenses) This wording confuses me. All licenses are license grants. The issue with having a (non-copyright-format) copyright file that simply states | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in | /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 is that that is just an irrelevant statement of fact; it doesn't tell the reader what the license of the package is! On the other hand, | Files: * | License: GPL-2+ | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in | /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 in combination with | Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ makes the intention very clear; the only potential icing on the top would be if there were some file for users explaining how to interpret this file. Thanks, Jonathan
