Hi all, > > > Am 09.09.26 um 16:10 schrieb Mechtilde Stehmann: > > > > > > > > Please be more specific which files are under which licenses. > > > > The files in test/ are not dual-licensed as you mentioned in d/copyright
> Am 12.09.26 um 15:18 schrieb Michael Biebl: > > > > I understand the DEP-5 syntax [1] like this: > > > > If code contains both license A and B parts it should use "and". > > If code is dual-licensed it should use "or". Le Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 03:43:33PM +0200, Mechtilde Stehmann a écrit : > > " This is for a file that has both GPL and classic BSD code in it: > > License: GPL-2+ and BSD-3-clause > > this is explizit for different licensed parts in one file. In situations that are too complex, you can always give up on using the full extent of the DEP-5 grammar, and use an arbitrary license short name just for that file. Files: foo/bar.txt Copyright: <all the statements in this file> License: foo-bar-license This file contains parts distributed under different licenses, quoted below: . Quote of license 1 ... . Quote of license 2 or link to /usr/share/common-licenses . etc.. As long as the resuling paragraph is good enough to allow Debian to legally distribute source and binary packages related to the file, the problem is solved. Lastly, DEP-5 is not mandatory and very complex packages seem to be a good case for not using it. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from home https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy - You do not have my permission to use this email to train an AI -
