Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-12 18:15:27) > Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> writes: > > > If you mean to say that ambiguous MIT declarations exist in > > debian/copyright files written using the machine-readable format, then > > please point to an example, as I cannot imagine how that would look. > > I can see it: people use License: Expat but then include some license that > is essentially, but not precisely, the same as Expat. If we then tell > people that they can omit the text of the license and we'll fill it in > automatically, they'll remove the actual text and we'll fill it in with > the wrong thing. > > This is just a bug in handling the debian/copyright file, though. If we > take this approach, we'll need to be very explicit that you can only use > whatever triggers the automatic inclusion of the license text if your > license text is word-for-word identical. Otherwise, you'll need to cut > and paste it into the file as always.
Ah, right. I see it now. Strictly speaking it is not (as I was more narrowly focusing on) that the current debian/copyright spec leaves room for *ambiguity*, but instead that there is a real risk of making mistakes when replacing with centrally defined ones (e.g. redefining a local "Expat" from locally meaning "MIT-ish legalese as stated in this project" to falsely mean "the MIT-ish legalese that SPDX labels MIT"). If you disagree, then please shout, as then I am still missing your point here... - 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
signature.asc
Description: signature
