Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: > --- 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.
Sounds clear and is true. > 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. Such license identifiers may or may not be used? It's not clear to me when reading this what it's asking me to do. I don't see much obvious benefit to matching SPDX names for licenses not defined in the copyright-format spec, so I'd suggest leaving this second sentence out. Alternatively in some future version of the copyright-format spec we could *require* that SPDX names be used. Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
