On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
This makes sense. What I'm looking for is a clarification in the text
not a change to the spec. Would the attached patch be acceptable or
just overkill?
diff --git a/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml
b/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml
index 217e8dd..2947686 100644
--- a/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml
+++ b/copyright-format/copyright-format-1.0.xml
@@ -663,6 +663,14 @@ Copyright 2009, 2010 Angela Watts</programlisting>
license short names for unknown <varname>Format</varname> versions.
</para>
<para>
+ For licenses which are not currently included in the list of standard
+ short names, the maintainer may use any short name they find
+ appropriate. The license identifier used by the <link linkend="spdx">
+ SPDX</link> in their <ulink url="http://spdx.org/licenses";>Open Source
+ License Registry</ulink> may be used, but this is not mandatory in any
+ way.
+ </para>
+ <para>
Use of a standard short name does not override the Debian Policy
requirement to include the full license text in
<filename>debian/copyright</filename>, nor any requirements in the
Thanks!
-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
Ubuntu Developer <https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething>
Debian Developer <http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb>
PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1
0001-copyright-format-Clarify-short-name-usage-for-licens.patch
Description: Binary data
