Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:27:30AM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > I think the License-Grant field is a useful addition to the format, > resolving some issues around whether License is meant to be the license, > the license grant or both, and I would like to be able to start using it. I strongly

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 09:29:27 PM Markus Koschany wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for reporting. I also intended to make such a proposal and I had > briefly mentioned it in bug #883966. [1] > > The reason why the short form is allowed is because of Debian Policy 12.5 > > "Packages distributed

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hello Markus, On Tue, Dec 12 2017, Markus Koschany wrote: > I agree that using boiler plate like this: > > | License: GPL-2+ > | On Debian systems the full text of the GPL-2 can be found in > | /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 > > is still redundant. > > I suggest to change Debian Policy 12.5

Processed: Re: Bug#884224: debian-policy: please add CC-BY-3.0 to common licenses

Processing control commands: > forcemerge 795402 -1 Bug #795402 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add Creative Commons license texts Bug #883968 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please add CC-BY-SA-3.0 to common licenses Bug #883969 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please add CC-BY-SA-4.0 to

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

Hi, thanks for reporting. I also intended to make such a proposal and I had briefly mentioned it in bug #883966. [1] The reason why the short form is allowed is because of Debian Policy 12.5 "Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL

Bug#884228: debian-policy: please add OFL-1.1 to common licenses

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: normal Hi, as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package maintainers are allowed to reference them. License: OFL-1.1 Source:

Bug#884227: debian-policy: please add zlib to common licenses

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: normal Hi, as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package maintainers are allowed to reference them. License: zlib Source:

Bug#884225: debian-policy: please add CC-BY-4.0 to common licenses

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: normal Hi, as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package maintainers are allowed to reference them. License: CC-BY-4.0 Source:

Bug#884226: debian-policy: please add EPL-1.0 to common licenses

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: normal Hi, as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package maintainers are allowed to reference them. License: EPL-1.0 Source:

Bug#884224: debian-policy: please add CC-BY-3.0 to common licenses

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: normal Hi, as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package maintainers are allowed to reference them. License: CC-BY-3.0 Source:

Bug#884223: debian-policy: please add AGPL-3.0 to common licenses

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: normal Hi, as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package maintainers are allowed to reference them. License: AGPL-3.0 Source:

Re: Bug#883966: debian-policy: please add MIT/Expat to common licenses

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Markus Koschany writes: > > We always distribute the source code along with the binary packages. > > This isn't true: we produce install media that contains only the > binary packages and not the source. While we do generate install

Bug#883966: debian-policy: please add MIT/Expat to common licenses

Markus Koschany writes: > Am 12.12.2017 um 03:39 schrieb Russ Allbery: >> The binaries built from the source code are a "substantial portion of >> the Software." We have to include the license and copyright statement >> with the binaries, since they're a derivative work, and

Re: Bug#883966: debian-policy: please add MIT/Expat to common licenses

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:52:54AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > We always distribute the source code along with the binary packages. > > This condition would still be satisfied. If it works for Red Hat / > > Fedora it should work for Debian too. > > Do you argue, then, that the act of copying

Re: Bug#883966: debian-policy: please add MIT/Expat to common licenses

On 2017-12-12 at 08:40, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 12.12.2017 um 03:39 schrieb Russ Allbery: > >> Markus Koschany writes: >> >>> I don't want to open another can of worms yet but I believe even >>> if someone changed this phrase and we simply stated MIT as >>> license in

Bug#883966: debian-policy: please add MIT/Expat to common licenses

Am 12.12.2017 um 03:39 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Markus Koschany writes: > >> I don't want to open another can of worms yet but I believe even if >> someone changed this phrase and we simply stated MIT as license in >> debian/copyright we still wouldn't violate any law because >>