Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> writes: > I am neither a DD nor a policy editor, so my opinion shouldn't be > treated as authoritative in any way :) Still, my feeling is that if > there is no short name for a license defined in the copyright format > specification (the specific version of the specification that the > package's copyright file references, e.g. 1.0 for the present), then the > packager is free to pick any short name desired. IMHO if there is > indeed an SPDX identifier, it might be preferable to use that, but it is > not mandatory in any way.
Right, this was the intent. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
