Bug#781654: copyright-format: "IBM CPL" -> "CPL" in license short names table

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Plessy  writes:
> Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:

>>   in the short name license tables, shipped as part of the machine readable
>> copyright format specification and available online at
>> 
>>   
>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name
>> 
>> the long name of the Common Public License (CPL) is incorrect.

> Since the long names from the license table are not formally used in the
> specification, I think that the issue is non-normative and can be
> corrected without changing the revision number in the Format string of
> the Copyright files.

> I am wondering if it would be better to mark the corrected version of
> the specification as 1.0.1 in the text, but keep distributing the files
> as 1.0, or to just correct the version 1.0 without incrementing any
> revision number anywyere.

I vote for just fixing it without changing the revision number for this
sort of minor thing, on the grounds that we shouldn't put too many
obstacles in the way of fixing minor issues.

I've gone ahead and made this fix for the next upload.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#781654: copyright-format: IBM CPL - CPL in license short names table

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
File: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format-1.0.txt.gz

Heya,
  in the short name license tables, shipped as part of the machine readable
copyright format specification and available online at

  
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name

the long name of the Common Public License (CPL) is incorrect.

It currently reads IBM Common Public License, but it should simply be Common
Public License, without leading IBM. This is confirmed by both
http://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0 (which the table entry points to) and
http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php

(Many thanks to Mike Milinkovich for spotting this.)

Cheers.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.0
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.utf8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#781654: copyright-format: IBM CPL - CPL in license short names table

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:08:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
 Package: debian-policy
 Severity: minor
 File: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/copyright-format-1.0.txt.gz
 
 Heya,
   in the short name license tables, shipped as part of the machine readable
 copyright format specification and available online at
 
   
 https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name
 
 the long name of the Common Public License (CPL) is incorrect.
 
 It currently reads IBM Common Public License, but it should simply be 
 Common
 Public License, without leading IBM. This is confirmed by both
 http://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0 (which the table entry points to) and
 http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php

I am a bit concerned that the name Common Public License is very generic,
though this is probably too late to do something about it.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. ballo...@debian.org

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#781654: copyright-format: IBM CPL - CPL in license short names table

[Charles Plessy]

user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 781654 + informative proposal
thanks

   in the short name license tables, shipped as part of the machine readable
 copyright format specification and available online at
 
   
 https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name
 
 the long name of the Common Public License (CPL) is incorrect.
 
 It currently reads IBM Common Public License, but it should simply be 
 Common
 Public License, without leading IBM. This is confirmed by both
 http://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0 (which the table entry points to) and
 http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php

Hi Stefano,

this is correct.

Since the long names from the license table are not formally used in the
specification, I think that the issue is non-normative and can be corrected
without changing the revision number in the Format string of the Copyright
files.

I am wondering if it would be better to mark the corrected version of the
specification as 1.0.1 in the text, but keep distributing the files as 1.0, or
to just correct the version 1.0 without incrementing any revision number
anywyere.

What do other people think about this ?

 (Many thanks to Mike Milinkovich for spotting this.)

Thanks indeed, and have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org