Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2020-03-25 15:46:10) > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > > On 25.03.20 15:19, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:14:41PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > > >> On 25.03.20 14:43, Christian Kastner wrote: > > >> > > >>> This is not to say that licensing is an unimportant issue -- it clearly > > >>> is. But our analyze-and-document down-to-the-file approach is on the > > >>> other extreme end of the spectrum, and it causes lots of tiresome work > > >>> that nobody apart from us seems to care about. > > >> > > >> I'd contest this. Whenever Open Source standards come up in a > > >> discussion, Debian is always the gold reference. You know it can be done > > >> right and it is: in Debian. > > > Or you can look at the Redhat approach as a minimal working one. > > > You know it can be done much easier and still work: in Redhat. > > > > (in case it hasn't already been discussed in this thread, but don't > > bother rehashing...): What are they doing differently? > rpm packages record the package license information in a one-line License: > field.
Is your point that 9 lines can be reduced to one, or that 100 lines can be reduced to one? It is legal in Debian to write debian/copyright files looking like this: ======== debian/copyright ========== Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Upstream-Name: Foo Upstream-Contact: https://github.com/foo/foo/issues Source: https://github.com/foo/foo Files: * Copyright: Foo Bar License: WTFPL Do what the fuck ======== debian/copyright ========== Obviously that is legal only when it actually covers the full licensing situation for that source code! If you are talking about omitting some licensing, then I fail to recognize how that can be a "gold standard" which I believe is what you claimed above. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private