Re: Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5

2014-09-24 Thread Tobias Frost
On 24. September 2014 21:55:07 MESZ, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: >Hi Russ, > >> The syntax requires some short name. I think it's fine to just use >> something arbitrary that passes the syntax check, like >"custom-license". >> That's what I do. >I'll do that, then. Since I have two custom licenses,

Re: Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5

2014-09-24 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Russ, > The syntax requires some short name. I think it's fine to just use > something arbitrary that passes the syntax check, like "custom-license". > That's what I do. I'll do that, then. Since I have two custom licenses, I guess I should be using custom-license-1 and custom-license-2, which

Re: Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5

2014-09-24 Thread Russ Allbery
Matthijs Kooijman writes: > given that DEP5 is now part of debian-policy, I think this is the right > place for this dicussion? I use DEP5 here, though it's technically the > "Machine-readable debian/copyright file"-specification v1.0, but that's > so long to write :-p > Looking at my debian/cop

Unclarity wrt unnamed licenses in debian/copyright / DEP5

2014-09-24 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
(Please keep me CCd, I'm not subscribed) Hi folks, given that DEP5 is now part of debian-policy, I think this is the right place for this dicussion? I use DEP5 here, though it's technically the "Machine-readable debian/copyright file"-specification v1.0, but that's so long to write :-p Looking a