"W. Martin Borgert" <deba...@debian.org> writes: > Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect: > > /usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN > /usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN […] > /usr/share/pyshared/spambayes-1.0.4.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN > /usr/share/pyshared/tailor-0.9.35.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN > > I'm too lazy right now to file bugs, but shouldn't we fix this?
Currently, Debian policy is (AFAICT) silent on the topic of ‘foo-1.2.3.egg-info’ files. The ‘License’ field does not IMO have any effect on copyright or licenses; only an explicit grant of license could do that, and I don't think that field value would count. So currently I don't think they are bugs of any severity above ‘minor’. There's currently no effective Python policy (the latest one at <URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/> is way out of date with regard to current recommended practice). However, if there *were* to be such a policy, I would expect it to require that the distutils ‘License’ field at least be consistent with ‘debian/copyright’. So, in principle, I think these *should* be bugs. Presumably all these are created by upstream ‘setup.py’ settings, so it would ultimately be for upstream to fix in each case. -- \ “It's up to the masses to distribute [music] however they want | `\ … The laws don't matter at that point. People sharing music in | _o__) their bedrooms is the new radio.” —Neil Young, 2008-05-06 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
