On 15/11/11 16:57, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Ximin Luo <infini...@gmx.com>, 2011-10-17, 22:35: >> Currently the tag "missing-license-text-in-dep5-copyright" is emitted when >> the copyright file looks like this: >> >> ---- >> Files: * >> Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc >> License: MPL-1.1 or GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+ >> >> License: MPL-1.1 >> etc >> >> License: GPL-2 >> etc >> >> License: LGPL-2.1 >> etc >> ---- >> >> This is unnecessarily strict, because it means we need to have separate >> paragraphs for both GPL-2 and GPL-2+ licensed portions of the code. > > Yes, you _do_ need separate paragraphs for GPL-2 and GPL-2+, because the > license text is different. I.e., it would normally be something like: > > | Files: foo > | License: GPL-2 > | > | Files: bar > | License: GPL-2+ > | > | License: GPL-2 > | This program is free software; you can redistribute it > | and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General > | Public License as published by the Free Software > | Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your > | opinion) any later version. > | . > | [warranty diclaimers, etc.] > | > | License: GPL-2 > | This program is free software; you can redistribute it > | and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General > | Public License version 2 as published by the Free > | Software Foundation. > | . > | [warranty diclaimers, etc.] >
GPL2+ is not a license, it is a license specification - a description of what licenses apply to the materials in question, just like the string "GPL or BSD". FSF publishes no such license called "GPL2+". I agree that DEP5 is not clear, but the only logically consistent interpretation is that License: paragraphs refer to licenses, and not license specifications. (e.g. they do not accept specifications of the form "A or B"). From a machine-parsing point of view, it makes no sense to treat GPL2+ as a separate license, or be treated different from other specifications like "GPL or BSD". A more advanced parser might want to answer questions like compatibility between licenses; the simple way to code "GPL2+" would be to treat it as ( "GPL2" or "GPL2.x" or "GPL3" ... ), not to treat "GPL2+" as a separate license. I'll bring this up with debian-policy as well. > I can't see anything in the DEP-5 specification that'd support your > interpretation. However, if you still feel that this was the intended meaning, > please file a bug against debian-policy asking for clarification. > -- GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0 https://bitbucket.org/infinity0 https://launchpad.net/~infinity0
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
