On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 04:11:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > "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. > Ah, I didn't notice this change. > > I am not sure what is the intention > > to do in this case. > I think this should be clarified: I am Cc:ing Steve Langasek, the > driver of DEP-5. Discussions of DEP-5 should take place on the debian-project mailing list; the purpose of a driver is to guide discussion and document consensus only. > Steve, could you comment on this bug (#524732): what should be put in > the debian/copyright when the license is an Artistic one, but not the > one in /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic ? Any short name of your choosing, so long as it does not conflict with those specified in the DEP, can be used. If you wish to propose that a particular license have a standard tag in DEP-5, please do so on debian-project. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
