Hi, "Francesco Poli (t1000)" <f...@firenze.linux.it> writes:
> Hence, it's OK that the license text is quoted in full in the > debian/copyright file, but it's *not* OK that this license is called > "Artistic", since the copyright file format specification > (http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=226) > defines "Artistic" as "The original Artistic license, as seen in > /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic". > > Please change the misleading label to something more appropriate > (probably "other"). Correct, this might be misleading. However, in the current DEP-5 the "as seen in ..." was dropped. I am not sure what is the intention to do in this case. FYI, the version of the Artistic license that Simutrans uses can also be found on the OSI web page: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php > Moreover, I cannot find any debian-legal thread about this modified > Artistic license for Simutrans. > Was this license analyzed in order to check that simutrans really > belongs in Debian main? Could you point me to the relevant thread? > I fear that mislabelling the license as "Artistic" could have caused > some easy & fast "It's OK for main" conclusion... There is no thread on debian-legal about this license (there is also no requirement for such a thread). Do you see any problem with this particular license? I have at least read the license text and compared it with the Artistic license in /usr/share/common-license and did not see any problem myself. Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
