Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2026-05-17 11:26:09) > Quoting [email protected] (2026-05-17 10:52:25) > > Hello Jonas > > > > Am 17.05.2026 10:46 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > > Quoting [email protected] (2026-05-17 10:07:16) > > >> The decision about compliance goes to "reuse-tool" and is not the job > > >> of "spdx2debian". > > > > > > If I understand the situation correctly, then "spdx2debian" generally > > > proxies and reformats facts generated by "reuse-tool", > > > > If I understand your comment correct, yes. > > > > > but then chooses > > > to additionally fabricate a fact about the file debian/copyright for a > > > more polished result. > > > > Yes, that is a dirty workaround. I am glad this discussion came up. And > > I hope we find a better solution I can my tool adapt to. I am not happy > > about the current behavior of my tool. It is also quit young. > > Thanks for confirming my guess. > > I can recommend to prominently document such dirty workarounds: > users choosing a license checking tool due to it seemingly resolving a > more "final" result shold know if really they are picking a dirtier > tool than e.g. licensecheck. > > Thanks for your work on this - sorry if I come across as dismissive, > that is unintended.
Whoops, it seems I misunderstood previously what "spdx2debian" does. I missed the important detail that spdx2debian creates a new debian/copyright file from scratch. I wrongly read it as scanning a pre-existing debian/copyright file and creating a new *entry* within it with a made-up license. I find it far less problematic that "spdx2debian" invents a license for a new freshly generated file. I do find it problematic to consider an auto-generated file as copyright-protectable at all, and I do find it problematic to hardcode a licensing choice. I do think that it is best to document that behaviour (and possibly that is already the case), but I see no need for *prominently* docuenting it, as I was emphasizing in my previous posts here. Also (and the reason I spotted my mistake), I disagree with Mechtilde posting that debian/copyright files cannot be licensed. I license the debian/copyright files that I (sometimes but not always) invest quite some arguably creative work into constructing and maintaining, and I see no problem in treating that as copyrightable work and therefore to grant licensing for said protected work. Only the copyright holder can grant licensing, which might be the point that Mechtilde intended to point out, but that is irrelevant when generating a file from scratch. Sorry for the noise, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
