Hello, Am 29.12.2017 um 10:18 schrieb Sean Whitton: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org > usertags 883950 = normative discussion > thanks > > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 28 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> the Policy editors request your attention and a decision regarding >> Debian bug #883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses >> with only the identifier. >> >> Summary of the proposal [...] > > Thank you Markus for a great summary. > > We now know that we can go ahead with the main proposal to introduce the > "[GPL-3+]" notation into our machine-readable copyright format. > > However, we still need to decide how we are going to hint to the local > admin that "GPL-3+" means "GPL version 3 or any later version at your > option". (The purpose is to keep the machine-readable copyright format > basically readable without reference to the copy of the spec on the > Debian web mirrors. So it's not the square brackets that we need to > hint about. It's the '+'.) > > I suggested shipping the copyright format in base-files and referring to > it using the Format: header. Joerg thinks that a shorter/smaller hint > would be adequate and better than "duplicating" the copyright format -- > though do note that we might be able to find a way to ship it that > avoids any inconvenient duplication. > > I still think my proposal is best because it is forward-compatible with > the introduction of other abbreviations into the copyright format. Once > we know that the local admin has access to the full spec, we need worry > much less about any new abbreviation which saves developer time but > reduces the readability of copyright files. > > What are our alternatives here? What might a "README", as Joerg puts > it, look like? All I can think of is a standard snippet to include in > the Comment: field in the first paragraph of the copyright file, saying > that foo-N+ means foo version N or any later version of the license at > your option. > > Let's not rush choosing how we're going to provide this hint to the > local admin. We want to be sure we get this decision right because it > will be difficult to change it once the new abbreviation appears in > copyright files across the archive.
AFAICT Jörg prefers a "keep it simple" solution and I'm absolutely with him. In my opinion the simplest solution is to update the copyright format 1.0 document at https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and document the new abbreviation. Although I think that the + sign is already explained and understood, we can probably add one or two sentences to better explain it. We should not overthink this. We should definitely avoid creating a copyright format 1.1 document which would require an update of debian/copyright files. I can't contribute much to the further discussion because I believe the quintessential points were already discussed and approved and the only thing left is merely to document and announce it. Regards, Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
